From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 23 18:50:55 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@nevdull.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2430CC7A
 for <freebsd-fs@nevdull.freebsd.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:50:55 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com)
Received: from douhisi.pair.com (douhisi.pair.com [209.68.5.179])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3608FE8
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:50:54 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from quartz@sneakertech.com)
Received: from [10.2.2.1] (pool-173-48-121-235.bstnma.fios.verizon.net
 [173.48.121.235])
 by douhisi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E79F83F6D9
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:50:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5589AA8C.30304@sneakertech.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:50:52 -0400
From: Quartz <quartz@sneakertech.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ZFS raid write performance?
References: <5587C3FF.9070407@sneakertech.com> <5587C97F.2000407@delphij.net>
 <55887810.3080301@sneakertech.com> <20150622221422.GA71520@neutralgood.org>
 <55888E0D.6040704@sneakertech.com> <20150623002854.GB96928@neutralgood.org>
 <5588D291.4030806@sneakertech.com> <20150623042234.GA66734@neutralgood.org>
 <alpine.GSO.2.01.1506230812550.4186@freddy.simplesystems.org>
 <55897878.30708@kateley.com>
In-Reply-To: <55897878.30708@kateley.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:50:55 -0000

> Is it possible that the suggestion for the "landing pad" could be
> recommending a smaller ssd pool? Then replicating back to a slower pool?

It was for a single not-raid disk (then presumably rsyncing the files 
over to the pool, or something). The thought process seemed to be that a 
single disk always beat a raid-with-parity (ie; raid5, raidz2, etc) when 
it came to write speed.


> This is another argument for Quartz to test like he(?) would use in
> production.

Yeah, it's just that that's not terribly convenient at the moment. I 
think I'll just toss another drive in there and do some limited testing 
when we start copying things over.