We had done several benchmarks on Thumpers. Config 1 is definetly better on most of the loads. Some Raid1 configs perform better on certain loads.
Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +902123352222 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Elling Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:46 PM To: John Malick Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Thumper, ZFS and performance 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 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
