Kent Watsen wrote: > Rob Logan wrote: > >>> which is better 8+2 or 8+1+spare? >>> >> 8+2 is safer for the same speed >> 8+2 requires alittle more math, so its slower in theory. (unlikely seen) >> (4+1)*2 is 2x faster, and in theory is less likely to have wasted space >> in transaction group (unlikely seen) >> > > I keep reading that (4+1)*2 is 2x faster, but if all the data I care > about is in one of the two sets, does it follow that my access to just > that data is also 2x faster? - or is it more that simultaneous > read/write of the entire array is (globally) 2x faster? > > It is unlikely that the data you care about will be in just one of the two sets, given how ZFS spreads data around.
-- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/dd-b Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
