On Fri, 4 May 2012, Erik Trimble wrote:
predictable, and the backing store is still only giving 1 disk's IOPS. The
RAIDZ* may, however, give you significantly more throughput (in MB/s) than a
single disk if you do a lot of sequential read or write.
Has someone done real-world measurements which indicate that raidz*
actually provides better sequential read or write than simple
mirroring with the same number of disks? While it seems that there
should be an advantage, I don't recall seeing posted evidence of such.
If there was a measurable advantage, it would be under conditions
which are unlikely in the real world.
The only thing totally clear to me is that raidz* provides better
storage efficiency than mirroring and that raidz1 is dangerous with
Provided that the media reliability is sufficiently high, there are
still many performance and operational advantages obtained from simple
mirroring (duplex mirroring) with zfs.
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
zfs-discuss mailing list