Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:24:15 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232123410.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <CAJjvXiFXAwzy=hAABAHKzgfExtDVnYO-yi3H_JTqzTCm8Kg-cA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACpH0Mf6sNb8JOsTzC%2BWSfQRB62%2BZn7VtzEnihEKmEV2aO2p%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301211201570.9447@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> <CAJjvXiFXAwzy=hAABAHKzgfExtDVnYO-yi3H_JTqzTCm8Kg-cA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This is because RAID-Z spreads each block out over all disks, whereas RAID5 > (as it is typically configured) puts each block on only one disk. So to > read a block from RAID-Z, all data disks must be involved, vs. for RAID5 > only one disk needs to have its head moved. > > For other workloads (especially streaming reads/writes), there is no > fundamental difference, though of course implementation quality may vary. streaming workload generally is always good. random I/O is what is important.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232123410.1659>