Adam Lindsay wrote:
Okay, the way you say it, it sounds like a good thing. I misunderstood the performance ramifications of COW and ZFS's opportunistic write locations, and came up with much more pessimistic guess that it would approach random writes. As it is, I have upper (number of data spindles) and lower (number of disk sets) bounds to deal with. I suppose the available caching memory is what controls the resilience to the demands of random reads?
W/ that many drives (16), if you hit in RAM the reads are not really random :-), or they span only a tiny fraction of the available disk space. Are you reading and writing the same file at the same time? Your cache hit rate will be much better then.... - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
