Le 5 avr. 07 à 08:28, Robert Milkowski a écrit :
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, April 5, 2007, 1:08:25 AM, you wrote:
MA> Lori Alt wrote:
Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure
that it is
only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
yes it can be turned on. But I don't know
Hello Adam,
Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 11:41:58 PM, you wrote:
AL> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 11:04:06PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> If I stop all activity to x4500 with a pool made of several raidz2 and
>> then I issue spare attach I get really poor performance (1-2MB/s) on a
>> pool with lot
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, April 5, 2007, 1:08:25 AM, you wrote:
MA> Lori Alt wrote:
>>
>>> Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure that it is
>>> only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
>>>
>>>
>>> yes it can be turned on. But I don't know if ZFS would then know about it.
Hello Adam,
Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 7:08:07 PM, you wrote:
AL> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
>> - RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
AL> Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
AL> especially when compared with
Hello Constantin,
Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 3:34:13 PM, you wrote:
CG> - RAID-Z is slow when writing, you basically get only one disk's bandwidth.
CG> (Yes, with variable block sizes this might be slightly better...)
No, it's not.
It's actually very fast for writing, in many cases it would be
