Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:56:56 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peter_Ankerst=E5l?= <peter@pean.org> To: Sean <sean@ttys0.net> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Raid + zfs performace. Message-ID: <86693036-9351-4303-BADA-C99F7A4C375C@pean.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinQWchAPtcqcO3mDt9gKK5tCsHo8khyiD69M4BV@mail.gmail.com> References: <D2954020-C3A0-46EC-8C64-EB57EA1E9B21@pean.org> <AANLkTinQWchAPtcqcO3mDt9gKK5tCsHo8khyiD69M4BV@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 okt 2010, at 19.39, Sean wrote: >> I have a question about raid and zfs. I Have a hardware-raid running. >> A mirror thats the only storage in my zfs pool. Im going to >> add another mirror to the machine and my question is, what is the = best option performace-wise? >=20 > The best performance option is to get rid of the hardware-raid, and > present each disc to ZFS in a JBOD fashion. Ok. RIght now thats not an option. I have a da0 device thats a = hardware-raid mirror. and it is currently the only device in the only pool on the machine. >=20 >> Is it to add the other mirror to the same pool or create another = separate pool for that mirror? >> Btw. Today my disk are quite saturated r/w wise. >=20 > RAID functionality only exists within the context of a single pool. > You don't create a new pool and then try to mirror the two pools. You > add the storage to an existing pool, unless you have a reason to start > a new pool. When I already have a mirror, I like to add new mirror > sets. It's the equivalent of a RAID 10 scenario. Yes I know. I thought maybe because the existing pool is kind of r/w saturated it = should be better to create a new independent pool for the new drives. In that way the = heavy activity=20 would not "spread" to the new drives. Now you presented me with a third option. So you think I should skip to = create a new hardware-raid mirror and instead use two single drives and add = these as a mirror to the existing pool? How will zfs handle howswap of these = drives? I've seen a few crashes due to ata-detach in other systems. >=20 > -Sean >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86693036-9351-4303-BADA-C99F7A4C375C>