Roman, did you create your zpool with ashift=12 on a 4k drive? You must
manually ascertain whether your drives are 4k because they'll usually lie and
be really slow.
On Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 11:11, Daniel Jozsef <daniel.joz...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't remember anyone ever saying that ZFS was fast. In fact it's a resource
hog, and quite cumbersome.
>It is flexible and safe.
>Your test is equivalent to saying that it's much easier to walk around with
>money in a paper bag than in a reinforced steel security carrier case.
>(BTW, speaking of integrity, raid10 is nothing to write home about. It was a
>surprise to me as well, but no raid configuration protects against silent data
>corruption. The redundant raid configs were designed to protect from drive
>On Sunday, October 27, 2013 6:50:49 PM UTC-4, Roman Kunz wrote:
>I was playing around on Maverick with various FS setups. 4x 2TB drives in
>raidz, raid10 (hfs+/zfs) and it seems raid10 hfs+ outperformes all other setup
>by at least 80%.
>>Zfs comp disabled, 128k blocks, only large data gets moved. Arc cache doesn't
>>really kick in as most is write once / read once. Am I missing any tuneables?
>>I don't really want to use hfs+ again but having on a simple stripe test 2x
>>2TB read/write with zfs ~120MB/150MB i get with hfs ~200MB/250MB.
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.