From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org  Tue May 17 12:36:09 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155B8B3FF6D
 for <freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:36:09 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lexa@lexa.ru)
Received: from mx3.lexa.ru (ns503534.ip-198-27-68.net [198.27.68.102])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1321735
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:36:08 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lexa@lexa.ru)
Received: by mx3.lexa.ru (Postfix, from userid 66)
 id EFFA2224A5C; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:36:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [193.124.130.166] (unknown [193.124.130.166])
 by home-gw.lexa.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5881827
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 15:35:22 +0300 (MSK)
Subject: Re: ZFS performance bottlenecks: CPU or RAM or anything else?
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
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>
From: Alex Tutubalin <lexa@lexa.ru>
Message-ID: <1e012e43-a49b-6923-3f0a-ee77a5c8fa70@lexa.ru>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:35:22 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BD7DE274-04EB-4B19-988D-5A6FADC5B51A@digsys.bg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:36:09 -0000

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