On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 00:13:27 UTC+11, Daniel Becker wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 4:52 AM, roemer <uwe....@gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> 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.

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 
"zfs-macos" group.
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to