On Jan 3, 2007, at 19:55, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
performance should be good? I assumed it was an analog to RAID-6. In
our recent experience RAID-5 due to the 2 reads, a XOR calc and a
write op per write instruction is usually much slower than RAID-10
(two write ops). Any advice is greatly
Hello Peter,
Thursday, January 4, 2007, 1:12:47 AM, you wrote:
>> I've been using a simple model for small, random reads. In that model,
>> the performance of a raidz[12] set will be approximately equal to a single
>> disk. For example, if you have 6 disks, then the performance for the
>> 6-dis
Hi Robert,
That makes sense. Thank you. :-) Also, it was zpool I was looking at.
zfs always showed the correct size.
-J
On 1/3/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 11:40:38 PM, you wrote:
JJWW> Just got an interesting benchmark. I made two
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 11:40:38 PM, you wrote:
JJWW> Just got an interesting benchmark. I made two zpools:
JJWW> RAID-10 (9x 2-way RAID-1 mirrors: 18 disks total)
JJWW> RAID-Z2 (3x 6-way RAIDZ2 group: 18 disks total)
JJWW> Copying 38.4GB of data from the RAID-Z2 to the RAID-10
Hi Robert,
Our X4500 configuration is multiple 6-way (across controllers) RAID-Z2
groups striped together. Currently, 3 RZ2 groups. I'm about to test
write performance against ZFS RAID-10. I'm curious why RAID-Z2
performance should be good? I assumed it was an analog to RAID-6. In
our recent expe
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 11:11:31 PM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Richard,
JJWW> Hmmthat's interesting. I wonder if its worth benchmarking RAIDZ2
JJWW> if those are the results you're getting. The testing is to see the
JJWW> performance gain we might get for MySQL moving off the FLX2
