> <div id="jive-html-wrapper-div"> > > ZFS based mirroring is only slightly less reliable > than Raid-z2, and it gives much better IOP/s.<br>
How it can give much better iops taking into account slow and large sata drives? > Neither exchange or SQL Server tend to be throughput bound, but both require > very high IOP/s rates. I don't think you'll see enough traffic accross the > controller for it to be the > bottleneck!<br> Correct, there is not much traffic, but we have decreased iops for a particular lun affected by activity on another volume (backup going, defragmentation, on-line maintenance or something else, I'm not a specialist here). > Even with a dedicated SAN and 15K/rpm drives, MS generally recommend > Raid-10 configurations for exchange. Raid-5/6, or RaidZ1/2 usually > doesn't give the IOP/s rates you need - although many people do anyway.<br> That's why I'd like to use SSD - to improve iops to a desirable level. > How many users are there on your exchange server? I have a suspicion > that even if you move to zfs mirroring, you still might not get enough > performance for exchange with that number of drives - > especially if you're putting other load on the system.<br> Yes, there is "other load" and this is a problem as well (archiving in our case). That's why they want to separate exchange dbs from each other. -- Roman -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ storage-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
