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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 Tutubalin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d02963de-bcfe-271e-7536-6546e4e6230e>