Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:24:19 +0300 From: Alex Tutubalin <lexa@lexa.ru> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS performance bottlenecks: CPU or RAM or anything else? Message-ID: <d02963de-bcfe-271e-7536-6546e4e6230e@lexa.ru> In-Reply-To: <86shxgsdzh.fsf@WorkBox.Home> References: <8441f4c0-f8d1-f540-b928-7ae60998ba8e@lexa.ru> <f87ec54a-104e-e712-7793-86c37285fdaa@internetx.com> <16e474da-6b20-2e51-9981-3c262eaff350@lexa.ru> <BD7DE274-04EB-4B19-988D-5A6FADC5B51A@digsys.bg> <1e012e43-a49b-6923-3f0a-ee77a5c8fa70@lexa.ru> <86shxgsdzh.fsf@WorkBox.Home>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> If you're already planning for multiple simultaneous drive failures, > "economical" isn't really a factor, is it? Those disks have to get > replaced regardless of the redundancy scheme you assign to them. ;) I do not plan failures, but there always a chance of bad drive model. I've survived 3-Tb Seagates without data loss. It was not possible in my case without RAID6 (hardware). > Speaking strictly about performance, RAIDZ performance is pretty much > fixed, Anyway, my thread-starting question is different: I see great performance difference on same pool connected to different CPU/ram combo. I do not know what caused this difference: CPU speed, RAM bandwidth, or RAM latency. May be someone in this list has benchmarked ZFS RAIDZ for performance and knows what is the bottleneck? Alex Tutubalinhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d02963de-bcfe-271e-7536-6546e4e6230e>