From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 16 01:29:42 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101D31065678 for ; Sun, 16 May 2010 01:29:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SamanKaya@netscape.net) Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com (imr-da06.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.203]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24F38FC1F for ; Sun, 16 May 2010 01:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.68]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o4G1TRD7010709 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 21:29:27 -0400 Received: from [172.16.0.66] (unknown [212.156.209.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-mb04.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 87825E0000B0 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 21:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4BEF4A73.8060905@netscape.net> Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:23 +0300 From: Kaya Saman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <4BEF2F9C.7080409@netscape.net> <4BEF3137.4080203@netscape.net> <20100516001351.GA50879@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:486950624:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29444bef4a7671a1 X-AOL-IP: 212.156.209.87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Quick ZFS mirroring question for non-mirrored pool X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 01:29:42 -0000 Many thanks guys for providing so much valuable input and knowledge!!! I really appreciate all your advice and knowledge. Please excuse my naivety but the statement below: On 05/16/2010 03:51 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > As long as the pool is not the boot pool, zfs makes such testing quite > easy. I was under the impression that one needed a UFS2 filesystem in order to be able to boot FreeBSD as that is the only FS available upon install..... unlike Solaris10/OpenSolaris which creates the ZFS filesystem upon install. The plan I originally conceived was to use a 40GB solid state disk as the / (root) directory comprising of all descending file systems, eg. /usr, /proc, /lib etc... using the UFS2 FS ....and then use ZFS for the storage portion of my server using 2TB Western Digital RE4 Enterprise SATA drives. Since it's a simple home based server and not a massive enterprise grade environment performance is not too much of an issue. However, system backups are and without funding for a spare system or DAS or SAN solution the only real option I have is to use a RAID0 esq based setup so if one or both the primary drives go offline then at least I have all my data backed up and still available. Regards, Kaya On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 07:51:17PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Sat, 15 May 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> > >What you have here is the equivalent of RAID-10. It might be more >> > >helpful to look at the above as a "stripe of mirrors". >> > > >> > >In this situation, you might be better off with raidz1 (RAID-5 in >> > >concept). You should get better actual I/O performance due to ZFS >> > >distributing the I/O workload across 4 disks rather than 2. At least >> > >that's how I understand it. >> > > > > That would be a reasonable assumption but actual evidence suggests > > otherwise. For sequential I/O, mirrors and raidz1 seem to offer > > roughly similar performance, except that mirrors win for reads and > > raidz1 often win for writes. The mirror configuration definitely > > wins as soon as there are many seeks or multi-user activity. > > > > The reason why mirrors still do well for sequential I/O is that > > there is still load-sharing across the vdevs (smart "striping") but > > in full 128K blocks whereas the raidz1 config needs to break the > > 128K blocks into smaller blocks which are striped across the disks > > in the vdev. Breaking the data into smaller chunks for raidz > > multiplies the disk IOPS required. Disk seeks are slow. > > > > The main reason to choose raidz1 is for better space efficiency but > > mirrors offer more performance. > > > > For an interesting set of results, see the results summary of "Bob's > > method" at"http://www.nedharvey.com/". > > > > The only way to be sure for your own system is to create various > > pool configurations and test with something which represents your > > expected work load. As long as the pool is not the boot pool, zfs > > makes such testing quite easy. > Thanks Bob. You're absolutely right. I'd never seen/read said data results before, nor had I read the below material until now; quite interesting and educational. http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |