In a discussion a few weeks back, it was mentioned that the Best Practices
Guide says something like Don't put more than ___ disks into a single
vdev. At first, I challenged this idea, because I see no reason why a
21-disk raidz3 would be bad. It seems like a good thing.
I was operating on
On 20/10/2010 14:03, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In a discussion a few weeks back, it was mentioned that the Best Practices
Guide says something like Don't put more than ___ disks into a single
vdev. At first, I challenged this idea, because I see no reason why a
21-disk raidz3 would be bad. It
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In a discussion a few weeks back, it was mentioned that the Best Practices
Guide says something like Don't put more than ___ disks into a single
vdev. At first, I challenged this idea, because I see no reason why a
21-disk raidz3 would be
On 20/10/2010 14:48, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 20/10/2010 14:03, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In a discussion a few weeks back, it was mentioned that the Best
Practices
Guide says something like Don't put more than ___ disks into a single
vdev. At first, I challenged this idea, because I see no
Richard wrote:
Untrue. The performance of a 21-disk raidz3 will be nowhere near the
performance of a 20 disk 2-way mirrror.
You know this stuff better than I do. Assuming no bus/cpu bottlenecks, a 21
disk raidz3 should provide sequential throughput of 18 disks and random
throughput of 1
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Marty Scholes wrote:
Untrue. The performance of a 21-disk raidz3 will be nowhere near the
performance of a 20 disk 2-way mirrror.
You know this stuff better than I do. Assuming no bus/cpu
bottlenecks, a 21 disk raidz3 should provide sequential throughput
of 18 disks
