Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 19:49:23 -0400 From: Tom Curry <thomasrcurry@gmail.com> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS, Zvol, iSCSI and windows Message-ID: <CAGtEZUCdVZ=J4fVCAAgJJjhgvreLjx2Bnccn5yu6im1wEsaE-A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <560E3F32.5060600@digiware.nl> References: <56050EFC.1000303@digiware.nl> <1443179614.5271.42.camel@data-b104.adm.slu.se> <CAGtEZUD-e-9uH1H3hzL2Twj%2BvpMQJtw0neQ4TtQTJK392EKUJw@mail.gmail.com> <5606EBEA.2090103@digiware.nl> <560E3F32.5060600@digiware.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> wrote: > > So the moral of the story: > It is not always wise to match NTFS blocksize with the ZVOL blocksize. > > As for possible performance penalties on the Windows side.... > It is hard to find a niche and sensible disk tester. > > Using the error scanner from HDtune, performance has dropped a tiny bit. > I'm seeing a 1000 IOPS and 30Mbyte/sec of throuput. > This is on a 2* vdev 6* disk raidz2 volume. > > --WjW > Well if space efficiency is the goal then the moral of the story should be when using a fixed block/stripe size (as is the case with a zvol) make sure the size is at least as large as the sum of all non parity/mirror disks in a vdev. I think this holds true for any vdev configuration, be it a stripe, mirror or parity. As for the NTFS cluster size, in my travels I haven't been able to notice any real performance or efficiency difference when changing the cluster size. Perhaps a little variance at extremes, but nothing worth getting excited over.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGtEZUCdVZ=J4fVCAAgJJjhgvreLjx2Bnccn5yu6im1wEsaE-A>