On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
own
stripe.
Nope, that
From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl]
[In raidz] The issue is that each zfs filesystem block is basically
spread across
n-1 devices.
So every time you want to read back a single fs block you need to wait
for all n-1 devices to provide you with a part of it - and keep in mind
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl]
[In raidz] The issue is that each zfs filesystem block is basically
spread across
n-1 devices.
So every time you want to read back a single fs block you need to wait
for all n-1 devices to provide you with a part of it
From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
own
stripe.
Nope, that doesn't count for confirmation. It is at least theoretically
possible to
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Robert Milkowski
I had a quick look at your results a moment ago.
The problem is that you used a server with 4GB of RAM + a raid card
with
a 256MB of cache.
Then your filesize for iozone
On 22/07/2010 03:25, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Robert Milkowski
I had a quick look at your results a moment ago.
The problem is that you used a server with 4GB of RAM + a raid card
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of v
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops
On 21/07/2010 15:40, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of v
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same
There is a common misconception about the comparison between
mirror and raidz.
You get the same performance, when you use the same number of disks.
But the resulting filesystem has a different sizre, therefore a comparison
is not applicable.
Example: you have 8 disks
Compare a zpool with
- Original Message -
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical
disk's ipos.
Mostly, yes. Traditionl RAID-5 is likely
On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:12 AM, v victor_zh...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one
physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same
performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk's ipos.
On
- Original Message -
On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:12 AM, v victor_zh...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal
On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:46 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to
one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has
same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one
13 matches
Mail list logo
