Bart Smaalders wrote:
Adam Lindsay wrote:
Okay, the way you say it, it sounds like a good thing. I misunderstood
the performance ramifications of COW and ZFS's opportunistic write
locations, and came up with much more pessimistic guess that it would
approach random writes. As it is, I have upper (number of data
spindles) and lower (number of disk sets) bounds to deal with. I
suppose the available caching memory is what controls the resilience
to the demands of random reads?
W/ that many drives (16), if you hit in RAM the reads are not really
random :-), or they span only a tiny fraction of the available disk
space.
Clearly I hadn't thought that comment through. :) I think my mental
model included imagined bottlenecks elsewhere in the system, but I
haven't got to discussing those yet.
Are you reading and writing the same file at the same time? Your cache
hit rate will be much better then....
Not in the general case. Hmm, but there are some scenarios with
multimedia caching boxes, so that could be interesting to leverage
eventually.
bedankt,
adam
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
