2012-03-21 22:53, Richard Elling wrote:
This is why a single
vdev's random-read performance is equivalent to the random-read
performance of
a single drive.

It is not as bad as that. The actual worst case number for a HDD with
of one is:
average IOPS * ((D+P) / D)
D = number of data vdevs
P = numebr of parity vdevs (1 for raidz, 2 for raidz2, 3 for raidz3)
total disks per set = D + P

I wrote in this thread that AFAIK for small blocks (i.e. 1-sector
size worth of data) there would be P+1 sectors used to store the
block, which is an even worse case at least capacity-wise, as well
as impacting fragmentation => seeks, but might occasionally allow
parallel reads of different objects (tasks running on disks not
involved in storage of the one data sector and maybe its parities
when required).

Is there any truth to this picture?

Were there any research or tests regarding storage of many small
files (1-sector sized or close to that) on different vdev layouts?
I believe that such files would use a single-sector-sized set of
indirect blocks (dittoed at least twice), so one single-sector
sized file would use at least 9 sectors in raidz2.

Thanks :)

We did many studies that verified this. More recent studies show
has a huge impact on average latency of HDDs, which I also described in
my talk at
OpenStorage Summit last fall.

What about drives without (a good implementation of) NCQ/TCQ/whatever?
Does ZFS in-kernel caching, queuing and sorting of pending requests
provide a similar service? Is it controllable with the same switch?

Or, alternatively, is it a kernel-only feature which does not depend
on hardware *CQ? Are there any benefits to disks with *CQ then? :)

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to