From nobody Mon Aug 14 18:02:50 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4RPj1P09ryz4Tp3Q for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 18:03:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vs1-f43.google.com (mail-vs1-f43.google.com [209.85.217.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4RPj1N1h5mz4FGN for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of asomers@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=asomers@gmail.com; dmarc=none Received: by mail-vs1-f43.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-44758646388so2003198137.1 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:03:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692036182; x=1692640982; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DTsDRxx315TBEV5SpdFjeztBPcLVzKeANtKS8p6D3oc=; b=aiioyrN0Nv2k70mDuEp1XIHTJ6C7/NOT27mkiXhpKJcuHgwu1TFXufJHSu2IAxM0X1 SUsAPn5YxiUcnWiCu/wKLFrfXKtqQ0TytHqqCb+yEpGqHzowIDTMWlGEb5t693Im2Njd TJOb9DCjZEtcM001u+vFke2sDTDkyEgAL43nAoxHDGC2mmDJJyj5vFQ0M7VoHGnIHrTL CWITNxQtS7nofoEelr8sidZMVIJQQcMjk6M4bukGA4UFsV8Fexclg0uk63iwTFthZbpc /iTLhegLw8nyAYrrWMVkWi4VVVoAiWs0rIL73HEEVUD8yUvls+3La04j7AF7c/5a0Dzh EgcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzYte9eT8dRMyBx7XF/ipjJOAJzFTnYZ/PoofpyvqtOWQqva3JP cQ7MYHUu2KmPtQHjeDVMAk7a7oqnffMkLZVZhYjuKsvX X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEDmXv2cGLOqsqLE7akPSO07SBvf7z9mV7Yyq86NFVxzLjEuq35IZ/OxDZb2vPWOvvgeYPT6dW/kDpDG8CF6Lg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3a63:b0:443:5792:1891 with SMTP id bf3-20020a0561023a6300b0044357921891mr10935296vsb.19.1692036182282; Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:03:02 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Somers Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:02:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: zfs on ssd To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.77 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.932]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.83)[-0.834]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.217.43:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[asomers@freebsd.org,asomers@gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.217.43:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[asomers]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; TO_DOM_EQ_FROM_DOM(0.00)[] X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4RPj1N1h5mz4FGN Yeah, that will work fine. The only weird thing is that iops won't be evenly distributed. The larger SSD will get twice as much I/O as the smaller one. Just make sure that they both have the same blocksize, or else simply force the ashift to 12. On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 10:52=E2=80=AFAM void wrote: > > Hello list, > > I'd like to zpool 2x different size ssds into a single (non-redundant) > pool. One is nearly 2Tb the other is nearly 4Tb. > > Will this work without performance penalty? I'm hoping that, > because it'll be a non-redundant stripe, it'd work as expected > without issue. The contest here is -current. > > Right now each ssd is its own zpool > > -- >