From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 23 20:23:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CD17DF; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:23:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [188.252.31.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA022CDE; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0NKMrEl001682; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:22:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id r0NKMqI3001679; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:22:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:22:52 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. In-Reply-To: <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> Message-ID: References: <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:22:53 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-fs , FreeBSD Hackers X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:23:02 -0000 >> While RAID-Z is already a king of bad performance, > > I don't believe RAID-Z is any worse than RAID5. Do you have any actual > measurements to back up your claim? it is clearly described even in ZFS papers. Both on reads and writes it gives single drive random I/O performance.