On 14 July 2012 02:33, Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@oracle.com wrote:
I don't think that xattrs were ever intended or designed
for /proc content.
I could file an RFE for you if you wish.
So Oracle Newspeak now calls it an RFE if you want a real bug fixed, huh? ;-)
This is a real bug in
Hello list,
did some bonnie++ benchmarks for different zpool configurations
consisting of one or two 1tb sata disks (hitachi hds721010cla332, 512
bytes/sector, 7.2k), and got some strange results, please see
attachements for exact numbers and pool config:
seq write factor seq read
Hi all,
this is a follow up some help I was soliciting with my corrupted pool.
The short story is I can have no confidence in the quality in the labels on 2
of my 5 drive RAIDZ array. For various reasons.
There is a possibility even that one drive has label of another (a mirroring
accident).
On Jul 16, 2012, at 2:43 AM, Michael Hase wrote:
Hello list,
did some bonnie++ benchmarks for different zpool configurations
consisting of one or two 1tb sata disks (hitachi hds721010cla332, 512
bytes/sector, 7.2k), and got some strange results, please see
attachements for exact numbers
2) in the mirror case the write speed is cut by half, and the read
speed is the same as a single disk. I'd expect about twice the
performance for both reading and writing, maybe a bit less, but
definitely more than measured.
I wouldn't expect mirrored read to be faster than single-disk read,
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Stefan Ring wrote:
I wouldn't expect mirrored read to be faster than single-disk read,
because the individual disks would need to read small chunks of data
with holes in-between. Regardless of the holes being read or not, the
disk will spin at the same speed.
It is normal
I speak for myself... :-)
If the real bug is in procfs, I can file a CR.
When xattrs were designed right down the hall from me,
I don't think /proc interactions were considered, which
is why I mentioned an RFE.
Thanks,
Cindy
On 07/15/12 15:59, Cedric Blancher wrote:
On 14 July 2012
It is normal for reads from mirrors to be faster than for a single disk
because reads can be scheduled from either disk, with different I/Os being
handled in parallel.
That assumes that there *are* outstanding requests to be scheduled in
parallel, which would only happen with multiple readers
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Stefan Ring wrote:
It is normal for reads from mirrors to be faster than for a single disk
because reads can be scheduled from either disk, with different I/Os being
handled in parallel.
That assumes that there *are* outstanding requests to be scheduled in
parallel, which
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Stefan Ring wrote:
It is normal for reads from mirrors to be faster than for a single disk
because reads can be scheduled from either disk, with different I/Os being
handled in parallel.
That assumes that there *are*
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Michael Hase wrote:
This is my understanding of zfs: it should load balance read requests even
for a single sequential reader. zfs_prefetch_disable is the default 0. And I
can see exactly this scaling behaviour with sas disks and with scsi disks,
just not on this sata
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hase
got some strange results, please see
attachements for exact numbers and pool config:
seq write factor seq read factor
MB/sec MB/sec
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Michael Hase wrote:
This is my understanding of zfs: it should load balance read requests even
for a single sequential reader. zfs_prefetch_disable is the default 0. And
I can see exactly this scaling behaviour with sas disks
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Michael Hase wrote:
So only one thing left: mirror should read 2x
I don't think that mirror should necessarily read 2x faster even
though the potential is there to do so. Last I heard, zfs did not
include a special read scheduler for sequential reads from a mirrored
From: Michael Hase [mailto:mich...@edition-software.de]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 6:41 PM
So only one thing left: mirror should read 2x
That is still weird -
But all your numbers so far are coming from bonnie. Why don't you do a test
like this? (below)
Write a big file to mirror.
15 matches
Mail list logo
