From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 23 20:26:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35989CF5; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:26:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D61D55; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c12so14695291ieb.9 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9XrBORLOe2IsLQljrp9MmYuhcFI8/4m7lInRuUOVuew=; b=v1vzwwfD+9DwZKuxlIRR1ok9A8sExeD+7auzbZ6SJvT2wWKx4GuhcBV87L8f5KREPX rO+qf0XJpnt8VpRZaKLJpOPHm9VOaoXIZpJQG1PyQPBgOveZyb5ENDxm8pqnAksICrkY rRYEgijFaQwGrFSZDASME7CLMIFFsDZJYoedTP7uHlB/cA3NGaKb+MrmOvgKjlb6uftw b6IhABdJbtmelaKRBPzjxvRJKIF71wXv31M+OC7Z5s+G5tjhGU0DiUaFsrKqK3Bms+Av v2B5BJTqzUylhN7rYSayRgKkI0WWXS5OBaxcz8BQgDDO4N9MxTgzEXRslB6sDhbYE+2s E8+g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.114.4 with SMTP id ey4mr1995217icc.27.1358972803501; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.16.73 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.16.73 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:26:43 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. From: Chris Rees To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org 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 20:26:44 -0000 On 23 Jan 2013 20:23, "Wojciech Puchar" 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