> > Is this expected behavior? Assuming concurrent reads (not synchronous and > > sequential) I would naively expect an ndisk raidz2 pool to have a > > normalized performance of n for small reads. > > q.v. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=20942&tstart=0 > where such behavior in a hardware RAID array lead to corruption which > was detected by ZFS. No free lunch today, either. > -- richard
I appreciate the advantage of checksumming, believe me. Though I don't see why this is directly related to the small read problem, other than that the implementation is such. Is there some fundamental reason why one could not (though I understand one *would* not) keep a checksum on a per-disk basis, so that in the normal case one really could read from just one disk, for a small read? I realize it is not enough for a block to be self-consistent, but theoretically couldn't the block which points to the block in question contain multiple checksums for the various subsets on different disks, rather than just the one checksum for the entire block? Not that I consider this a major issue; but since you pointed me to that article in response to my statement above... -- / Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
