Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:35:22 +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: <1e012e43-a49b-6923-3f0a-ee77a5c8fa70@lexa.ru> In-Reply-To: <BD7DE274-04EB-4B19-988D-5A6FADC5B51A@digsys.bg> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/17/2016 3:29 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Not true. You can have N-way mirror and it will survive N-1 drive failures. I agree, but 3-way mirror does not looks economical compared to raidz2. > The limitations of RAIDZ performance do not come from CPU or RAM limitations, but by the underlying hardware. RAIDZ is limited to the performance of a single disk IOPS. > > CPU/RAM these days are so much faster than spinning disks or SSDs. Ok. But why I've got different results in my Y2012 testing ( i3-2120 was 1.5 times faster than Q9300 on same HDDs)? Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1e012e43-a49b-6923-3f0a-ee77a5c8fa70>