On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 00:13:27 UTC+11, Daniel Becker 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
> 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.
That's what I assumed too when reading that zfs article, but it didn't
become clear to me.
Thanks for the clarification. For my typical SOHO usage pattern, I wouldn't
expect IOPS throughput to be a problem.
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/d/optout.