On Mar 18, 2014, at 4:52 AM, roemer <uwe.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am also not sure now whether the performance is still higher due to > parallel I/O (see comment above about constant number of disk ops per > RAIDZ)... > At least it should be so high to saturate a gigabit ethernet link (i.e. 100 - > 110 MB/s).
For sequential transfers, RAIDZ with n disks will give you (n-1) times the throughput of a single disk. It’s only IOPS (i.e., performance in seek-dominated workloads / random I/O) where it doesn’t buy you anything, and with those kinds of workloads you typically won’t reach that kind of throughput anyway, at least not with conventional hard drives.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature