Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:26:43 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <CADLo838Rst7wEtV7DpY23XjpcFCsOkrN=axE1AscyO7vYgSKSg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232121430.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <CACpH0Mf6sNb8JOsTzC%2BWSfQRB62%2BZn7VtzEnihEKmEV2aO2p%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301211201570.9447@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232121430.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Jan 2013 20:23, "Wojciech Puchar" <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: >>> >>> 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. So we have to take your word for it? Provide a link if you're going to make assertions, or they're no more than your own opinion. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838Rst7wEtV7DpY23XjpcFCsOkrN=axE1AscyO7vYgSKSg>