Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:49:37 -0800 From: Artem Belevich <art@freebsd.org> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <CAFqOu6ijFG=0daO2PRkDckHdCBdVv7UZRRXbCada73H6wa9cpQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232224210.1971@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.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> <CAFqOu6hYiPDEpr9uQdE%2BCfmcL7%2Bhumpx2W7jcnLKcJdOG8bzFg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232224210.1971@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: >>> gives single drive random I/O performance. >> >> >> For reads - true. For writes it's probably behaves better than RAID5 > > > yes, because as with reads it gives single drive performance. small writes > on RAID5 gives lower than single disk performance. > > >> If you need higher performance, build your pool out of multiple RAID-Z >> vdevs. > > even you need normal performance use gmirror and UFS I've no objection. If it works for you -- go for it. For me personally ZFS performance is good enough, and data integrity verification is something that I'm willing to sacrifice some performance for. ZFS scrub gives me either warm and fuzzy feeling that everything is OK, or explicitly tells me that something bad happened *and* reconstructs the data if it's possible. Just my $0.02, --Artem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFqOu6ijFG=0daO2PRkDckHdCBdVv7UZRRXbCada73H6wa9cpQ>