On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:34:22AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hello przemolicc, > > Monday, March 12, 2007, 8:50:57 AM, you wrote: > > ppf> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:08:22AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > >> Hello Carisdad, > >> > >> Friday, March 9, 2007, 7:05:02 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> C> I have a setup with a T2000 SAN attached to 90 500GB SATA drives > >> C> presented as individual luns to the host. We will be sending mostly > >> C> large streaming writes to the filesystems over the network (~2GB/file) > >> C> in 5/6 streams per filesystem. Data protection is pretty important, but > >> C> we need to have at most 25% overhead for redundancy. > >> > >> C> Some options I'm considering are: > >> C> 10 x 7+2 RAIDZ2 w/ no hotspares > >> C> 7 x 10+2 RAIDZ2 w/ 6 spares > >> > >> C> Does any one have advice relating to the performance or reliability to > >> C> either of these? We typically would swap out a bad drive in 4-6 hrs and > >> C> we expect the drives to be fairly full most of the time ~70-75% fs > >> C> utilization. > >> > >> On x4500 with a config: 4x 9+2 RAID-z2 I get ~600MB/s logical > >> (~700-800 with redundancy overhead). It's somewhat jumpy but it's a > >> known bug in zfs... > >> So in your config, assuming host/SAN/array is not a bottleneck, > >> you should be able to write at least two times more throughput. > > ppf> Look also at: > ppf> http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-9-88385-1 > ppf> where you have a way to increase the I/O and application performance on > ppf> T2000. > > > I was talking about x4500 not T2000.
But Carisdad mentioned T2000. Regards przemol ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
