Rob Clark wrote:
>> On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> With ZFS and modern CPUs, the parity calculation is
>>>
>> surely in the noise to the point of being unmeasurable.
>>
>> I would agree with that. The parity calculation has *neve
> On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With ZFS and modern CPUs, the parity calculation is
> surely in the noise to the point of being unmeasurable.
>
> I would agree with that. The parity calculation has *never* been a
> factor in and of itself. T
On Jul 14, 2008, at 20:49, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Any time you see even a single statement which is incorrect, it is
> best to ignore that forum poster entirely and if no one corrects
> him, then ignore the entire forum.
Yes, because each and every one of us must correct inaccuracies on the
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On July 14, 2008 9:54:43 PM -0700 Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
>>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
It sounds like they're talking more about traditional hardware RAID
but is this also true fo
On July 14, 2008 9:54:43 PM -0700 Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It sounds like they're talking more about traditional hardware RAID
>>> but is this also true for ZFS? Right now I've got four 750GB drives
One nit ... the parity computation is 'in the noise' as far as the CPU goes,
but it tends to flush the CPU caches (or rather, replace useful cached data
with parity), which affects application performance.
Modern CPU architectures (including x86/SPARC) provide instructions which allow
data to b
On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This seems like a bunch of hog-wash to me. Any time you see even a
> single statement which is incorrect, it is best to ignore that forum
> poster entirely and if no one corrects him, then ignore the entire forum.
I d
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, [UTF-8] Søren Ragsdale wrote:
It seems to me that the blanket 8% improvement statement by 'Black
Jacque' is clearly the most technically correct even though it is a
not a serious answer.
[i]"You tend to get better write performance when the number of
disks in the raid is
Nit: you meant 2^N + 1 I believe.
Daniel
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I was reading some ZFS pages on another discussion list I found this comment by
few people who may or may not know something:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/24609792/m/956007108831
[i]"You tend to get better write performance when the number of disks in the
raid is (a power
10 matches
Mail list logo
