scrub completed after 1h9m with 0 errors on Tue Feb 17 12:09:31 2009
This is about twice as slow as the same srub on a solaris 10 box with a
mirrored zfs root pool. Has scrub become that much slower? And if so,
why?
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
+ http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce
Do you have more data on the 107 pool than on the sol10 pool?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:11 AM, dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote:
scrub completed after 1h9m with 0 errors on Tue Feb 17 12:09:31 2009
This is about twice as slow as the same srub on a solaris 10 box with a
mirrored zfs root
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:41:13 -0500
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have more data on the 107 pool than on the sol10 pool?
80G on the fast one and 85G on the slow one.
Furthermore, on the fast one the total amount is 100G more than on the
slow one. So, I don't get it ;-)
--
Dick
On 17 February, 2009 - dick hoogendijk sent me these 0,6K bytes:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:41:13 -0500
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have more data on the 107 pool than on the sol10 pool?
80G on the fast one and 85G on the slow one.
Furthermore, on the fast one the total amount
On 17 February, 2009 - dick hoogendijk sent me these 0,6K bytes:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:41:13 -0500
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com wrote:
=20
Do you have more data on the 107 pool than on the sol10 pool?
=20
80G on the fast one and 85G on the slow one.
Furthermore, on the fast one the total
casper@sun.com wrote:
I currently have a system with 2x1TB WDC disks; it's now running 103 and I
hope to upgrade it to 108 or 109 shortly. Then we should be able to
measure between a build before and after 105.
It only uses around 200GB and it now takes around 1 hour to scrub it.
I
