From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 28 15:33:43 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497E716A418 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE42A13C459 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxOus-0005kf-6Z for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:34 +0000 Received: from 78-0-78-190.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([78.0.78.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:34 +0000 Received: from ivoras by 78-0-78-190.adsl.net.t-com.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:34 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:33:24 +0100 Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <20071128091336.GA95214@gw.reifenberger.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig528E97755FC02D64B884B1A9" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 78-0-78-190.adsl.net.t-com.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) In-Reply-To: <20071128091336.GA95214@gw.reifenberger.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Sender: news Subject: Re: Recommendated disk layout for ZFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:43 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig528E97755FC02D64B884B1A9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael Reifenberger wrote: > Has anyone allready done a throughput comparison of the different layou= ts? There are general well-known rules about behaviour of various RAID levels, which should also hold for ZFS. > What would be the preferred layout from an performance POV? What kind of performance? read / write, sequential, scattered? One or more heavy users (applications)? All users behave the same or some are sequential and some are scattered? As a rule of thumb, if you don't know the parameters of disk access, with this many drives you won't make a big mistake if you put them all in a single raidz (you should consider purchasing one more drive and using it as either spare drive or make a raidz2 out of all drives togethe= r). --------------enig528E97755FC02D64B884B1A9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHTYpEldnAQVacBcgRApqpAJ0ZCQEJdoxTYz5EAeJBzvv/h8pwOwCg91dy Q930OxyL6BN4tlK3fp/rqpU= =vVxR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig528E97755FC02D64B884B1A9--