bofh <goodb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's something going on then. I have 7x 3TB disk at home, in
> raidz3, so about 12TB usable. 2.5TB actually used. Scrubbing takes
> about 2.5 hours. I had done the resilvering as well, and that did not
> take 15 hours/drive. Copying 3TBs onto 2.5" SATA drives did take more
> than a day, but a 2.5" drive's performance is about 1/4 of the 3.5"
> drives from the limited testing I've done.
The performance of a thumper depends on whether you set it up correctly.
A thumper offers 6 independent SATA concrollers that are able to do independent
DMA simultanesously. For this reason, I set up each "row" for ZFS with 6 drives.
$ drives for the net capacity and two parity drives.
I get a sustained local read performance of 600 MB/s this way.
> Additionally, if you're only replacing one drive at a time, you're
> only resilvering 250GB at a time, regardless of the size of the new
> If you already have 45X 3TB drives waiting to go in, bite the bullet
> and get that eSATA cage, since you want to re-do your zpools. You can
> reuse it for offsite backups in the future.
This is a miss-interpretation. If you have 7 raid-z2 rows with 6 drives
each, you may replace up tu 7 drives at once. I did not yet test this but I am
sure that this will finish in less than a day, so the upgrade may take aprox. a
> As a side note, on my x4540, I get writes of up to 1.2
> gigabytes/second (but that's just writing zeros to an uncompressed
> pool). Real performance is lower, of course.
With the original drives delivered by Sun?
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
zfs-discuss mailing list