On Wed, April 14, 2010 12:06, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>> It should be "safe" but chances are that your new 2TB disks are >>> considerably slower than the 1TB disks you already have. This should >>> be as much cause for concern (or more so) than the difference in raidz >>> topology. >> >> Not necessarily for a home server. While mine so far is all mirrored >> pairs of 400GB disks, I don't even think about "performance" issues, I >> never come anywhere near the limits of the hardware. > > I don't see how the location of the server has any bearing on required > performance. If these 2TB drives are the new 4K sector variety, even > you might notice.
The location does not, directly, of course; but the amount and type of work being supported does, and most home servers see request streams very different from commercial servers. The last server software I worked on was able to support 80,000 simultaneous HD video streams. Coming off Thumpers, in fact (well, coming out of a truly obscene amount of DRAM buffer on the streaming board, which was in turn loaded from Thumpers); this was the thing that Thumper was originally designed for, known when I worked there as the Sun Streaming System I believe. You don't see loads like that on home servers :-). And a big database server would have an equally extreme but totally different access pattern. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: 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
