Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:24:37 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Adam Nowacki <nowakpl@platinum.linux.pl> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301241523570.5666@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <51013345.8010701@platinum.linux.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> <51013345.8010701@platinum.linux.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> then stored on a different disk. You could think of it as a regular RAID-5 > with stripe size of 32768 bytes. > > PostgreSQL uses 8192 byte pages that fit evenly both into ZFS record size and > column size. Each page access requires only a single disk read. Random i/o > performance here should be 5 times that of a single disk. think about writing 8192 byte pages randomly. and then doing linear search over table. > > For me the reliability ZFS offers is far more important than pure > performance. Except it is on paper reliability.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1301241523570.5666>