On 11/27/2010 7:42 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Erik Trimble <erik.trim...@oracle.com
<mailto:erik.trim...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On 11/27/2010 6:50 PM, Christopher George wrote:
Furthermore, I don't think "1 hour sustained" is a very
accurate benchmark.
Most workloads are bursty in nature.
The IOPS degradation is additive, the length of the first and
second one hour
sustained period is completely arbitrary. The take away from
slides 1 and 2 is
drive inactivity has no effect on the eventual outcome. So
with either a bursty
or sustained workload the end result is always the same,
dramatic write IOPS
degradation after unpackaging or secure erase of the tested
Flash based SSDs.
Best regards,
Christopher George
Founder/CTO
www.ddrdrive.com <http://www.ddrdrive.com>
Without commenting on other threads, I often seen sustained IO in
my setups for extended periods of time - particularly, small IO
which eats up my IOPS. At this moment, I run with ZIL turned off
for that pool, as it's a scratch pool and I don't care if it gets
corrupted. I suspect that a DDRdrive or one of the STEC Zeus
drives might help me, but I can overwhelm any other SSD quickly.
I'm doing compiles of the JDK, with a single backed ZFS system
handing the files for 20-30 clients, each trying to compile a 15
million-line JDK at the same time.
Lots and lots of small I/O.
:-)
Sounds like you need lots and lots of 15krpm drives instead of 7200rpm
SATA ;)
--Tim
That's the scary part. I've got 24 2.5" 15k SAS drives with a 512MB
caching raid controller. Still gets hammered on my workload.
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
