John Malick wrote:
> There is a thread quite similar to this but it did not provide a clear answer
> to the question which was worded a bit odd..
>
> I have a Thumper and am trying to determine, for performance, which is the
> best ZFS configuration of the two shown below. Any issues other than
> performance that anyone may see to steer me in one direction or another would
> be helpful as well. Thanks.
>
Do config 1, please do not do config 2.
From zpool(1):
A raidz group with N disks of size X with P parity disks
can hold approximately (N-P)*X bytes and can withstand
one device failing before data integrity is compromised.
The minimum number of devices in a raidz group is one
more than the number of parity disks. The recommended
number is between 3 and 9.
-- richard
> ZFS Config 1:
>
> zpool status
> pool: rpool
> state: ONLINE
> scrub: none requested
> config:
>
> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
> rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
>
>
> versus
>
> ZFS Config 2:
>
> zpool status
> pool: rpool
> state: ONLINE
> scrub: none requested
> config:
>
> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
> rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c4t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c5t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c6t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
> c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
>
> In a nutshell, for performance reasons, is it better to have multiple raidz
> vdevs in the pool or just one raidz vdev. The number of disks used is the
> same in either case.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
