> Nit: small, random read I/O may suffer. Large random read or any random > write workloads should be ok. Given that video-serving is all sequential-read, is it correct that that raidz2, specifically 4(4+2), would be just fine?
> For 24 data disks there are enough combinations that it is not easy to > pick from. The attached RAIDoptimizer output may help you decide on > the trade-offs. Wow! - thanks for running it with 24 disks! > For description of the theory behind it, see my blog > http://blogs.sun.com/relling I used your theory to write my own program (posted in July), but your's is way more complete > I recommend loading it into StarOffice Nice little plug ;-) > and using graphs or sorts to > reorder the data, based on your priorities. Interesting, my 4(4+2) has 282 iops, where as 8(2+1) has 565 iops - exactly double, which is kind of expected given that it has twice as many stripes)... Also, it helps to see that the iops extremes are 12(raid1) with 1694 iops and 2(10+2) with 141 iops - so 4(4+2) is not a great 24-disk performer but isn't 282 iops is probably overkill for my home network? Yes, I (obviously :-) recommend > http://www.sun.com/storagetek/storage_networking/hba/sas/specs.xml Very nice - think I'll be getting 3 of these! Thanks, Kent _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
