> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > Has someone done real-world measurements which indicate that raidz* > actually provides better sequential read or write than simple > mirroring with the same number of disks? While it seems that there > should be an advantage, I don't recall seeing posted evidence of such. > If there was a measurable advantage, it would be under conditions > which are unlikely in the real world.
Apparently I pulled it down at some point, so I don't have a URL for you anymore, but I did, and I posted. Long story short, both raidzN and mirror configurations behave approximately the way you would hope they do. That is... Approximately, as compared to a single disk: And I *mean* approximately, because I'm just pulling it back from memory the way I chose to remember it, which is to say, a simplified model that I felt comfortable with: seq rd seq wr rand rd rand wr 2-disk mirror 2x 1x 2x 1x 3-disk mirror 3x 1x 3x 1x 2x 2disk mirr 4x 2x 4x 2x 3x 2disk mirr 6x 3x 6x 3x 3-disk raidz 2x 2x 1x 1x 4-disk raidz 3x 3x 1x 1x 5-disk raidz 4x 4x 1x 1x 6-disk raidz 5x 5x 1x 1x I went on to test larger and more complex arrangements... Started getting things like 1.9x and 1.8x where I would have expected 2x and so forth... Sorry for being vague now, but the data isn't in front of me anymore. Might not ever be again. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss