Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 11:11:31 PM, you wrote:
JJWW Hi Richard,
JJWW Hmmthat's interesting. I wonder if its worth benchmarking RAIDZ2
JJWW if those are the results you're getting. The testing is to see the
JJWW performance gain we might get for MySQL moving off the FLX210
Hi Robert,
Our X4500 configuration is multiple 6-way (across controllers) RAID-Z2
groups striped together. Currently, 3 RZ2 groups. I'm about to test
write performance against ZFS RAID-10. I'm curious why RAID-Z2
performance should be good? I assumed it was an analog to RAID-6. In
our recent
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 11:40:38 PM, you wrote:
JJWW Just got an interesting benchmark. I made two zpools:
JJWW RAID-10 (9x 2-way RAID-1 mirrors: 18 disks total)
JJWW RAID-Z2 (3x 6-way RAIDZ2 group: 18 disks total)
JJWW Copying 38.4GB of data from the RAID-Z2 to the RAID-10
Hi Robert,
That makes sense. Thank you. :-) Also, it was zpool I was looking at.
zfs always showed the correct size.
-J
On 1/3/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 11:40:38 PM, you wrote:
JJWW Just got an interesting benchmark. I made two
Hello Peter,
Thursday, January 4, 2007, 1:12:47 AM, you wrote:
I've been using a simple model for small, random reads. In that model,
the performance of a raidz[12] set will be approximately equal to a single
disk. For example, if you have 6 disks, then the performance for the
6-disk
On Jan 3, 2007, at 19:55, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
performance should be good? I assumed it was an analog to RAID-6. In
our recent experience RAID-5 due to the 2 reads, a XOR calc and a
write op per write instruction is usually much slower than RAID-10
(two write ops). Any advice is
