On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:37 PM, JavaWebDev wrote: > On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price >>> >>> Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD >>> quad-core is >> I know "a lot of CPU cycles" is a relative term. But I never notice CPU >> utilization, even under the heaviest loads I can generate. Note: I'm not >> generally using compression (which will require CPU) and I'm not using >> dedupe (which will require RAM). >> >> Still, I don't think it's fair or accurate to generalize and say "ZFS will >> use a lot of CPU cycles," unless you're qualifying it specifically such as >> "if you have compression enabled." > > I was wondering about that too because I've been seeing a lot of zfs builds > with atom processors and haven't complained about cpu utilization given a > small home server application. > > Sid question... I recently ran across this blog post that indicates raidz and > raidz2 don't increase performance over single drive performance unlike raid5. > The post was old so I was wondering if that was still true. > http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance
This model is for small, random read performance only. I'm perfectly happy to entertain models which can accurately predict performance when caches are present. But, I've never seen one that is accurate :-( -- richard -- ZFS and performance consulting http://www.RichardElling.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
