Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 08:33:48 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk> To: Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone using HAST in production / performance? Message-ID: <A6BBDA2C655FCD0A7D285AA3@study64.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <E1Whcqc-0008Eq-0C@dilbert.ingresso.co.uk> References: <E1Whcqc-0008Eq-0C@dilbert.ingresso.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On 6 May 2014 11:43:42 +0100 Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>
wrote:
>> I guess if you're just using the zool 'locally' - that 31Mbyte/sec may
>> be close to the performance you're getting [estimated]?
>
> I just diud a very unscientific test - dd of /dev/random into a fle,
> and I see about 30 meg/second in gstat, and the end result
> is about that too, so well guessed ;)
Yeah, not a bad guess :) - Looks like I'm not doing anything 'obviously'
wrong - it's just going as fast as it does...
>> What version of FreeBSD are you using? I'm just wondering if that's
>> making a difference...
>
> 9.2 - from the day after heartbleed came out. 10k drives, gig
> ether between the boxes.
Looks like I'm back to looking at iSCSI -> ZFS then for now. HAST has coped
with everything I've thrown at it ('failure' wise) but I need more speed
than that as storage for VM's etc.
Thanks for the info anyway,
-Karl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A6BBDA2C655FCD0A7D285AA3>