On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:11:59PM -0400, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:56:49PM -0400, Toby Burress wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:42:12PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > What does your zpool look like? Ideally if you're using RAIDz or RAIDz2 > > > then you should be using multiple RAIDz sets in the pool. This way IO is > > > stripped across the RAIDz sets and any degradation, and recovery, should > > > only involve the smaller RAIDz set. Which should be relatively quick > > > depending on the size and type of drives involved. > > > > The server that it taking a billion years to resilver does in fact have > > 15 disks in one big raidz2 pool. The other server has a single pool of > > three raidz2 arrays of 8 disks each, so hopefully that will yield better > > recoveries. Although if the bottleneck is reads, then wouldn't it be > > faster to read from 14 disks than 7? And if the bottleneck is just > > writes, then wow, I need to buy some different disks next time. > > > > Since the load on the machine is 3, and it's doing nothing but > > resilvering, I suspect the bottleneck is actually the CPU. I don't > > know a ton about the implementation of ZFS, but I do know it checksums > > every block. It would be insane for it not to verify those checksums > > while resilvering, and perhaps it even recomputes them while writes them > > to the new disk. > > Did you lose 1 or 2 disks in the raidz2 pool?
One disk. I actually have replaced two disks at a time and it was about the same. _______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [email protected] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
