On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Brent Jones <br...@servuhome.net> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > > > Hang on... if you've got 77 concurrent threads going, I don't see how > that's > > a "sequential" I/O load. To the backend storage it's going to look like > the > > equivalent of random I/O. I'd also be surprised to see 12 1TB disks > > supporting 600MB/sec throughput and would be interested in hearing where > you > > got those numbers from. > > > > Is your video capture doing 430MB or 430Mbit? > > > > -- > > --Tim > > > > > > Think he said 430Mbit/sec, which if these are security cameras, would > be a good sized installation (30+ cameras). > We have a similar system, albeit running on Windows. Writing about > 400Mbit/sec using just 6, 1TB SATA drives is entirely possible, and > working quite well on our system without any frame loss or much > latency. > Once again, Mb or MB? They're two completely different numbers. As for getting 400Mbit out of 6 SATA drive, that's not really impressive at all. If you're saying you got 400MB, that's a different story entirely, and while possible with sequential I/O and a proper raid setup, it isn't happening with random. > > The writes lag is noticeable however with ZFS, and the behavior of the > transaction group writes. If you have a big write that needs to land > on disk, it seems all other I/O, CPU and "niceness" is thrown out the > window in favor of getting all that data on disk. > I was on a watch list for a ZFS I/O scheduler bug with my paid Solaris > support, I'll try to find that bug number, but I believe some > improvements were done in 129 and 130. > > > -- --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
