From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C78FBA9F2 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:54:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 037E012E6A for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:53:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:53:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DEEA48B71 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:53:31 +0100 (CET) From: Folke Gleumes To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:52:19 +0100 Message-Id: <20240320155219.509745-1-f.gleumes@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.020 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [github.io] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs] zfs: add a note about dRaid performance X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:54:02 -0000 Based on statements from the openZFS documentation where it is described as providing "the same level of redundancy and performance as raidz" [0]. [0] https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Basic%20Concepts/dRAID%20Howto.html --- local-zfs.adoc | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/local-zfs.adoc b/local-zfs.adoc index a1a14e4..5db94cc 100644 --- a/local-zfs.adoc +++ b/local-zfs.adoc @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@ A 'RAIDZ' of any redundancy level will approximately behave like a single disk in regard to IOPS with a lot of bandwidth. How much bandwidth depends on the size of the RAIDZ vdev and the redundancy level. +A 'dRAID' should match the performance of an equivalent 'RAIDZ' pool. + For running VMs, IOPS is the more important metric in most situations. -- 2.39.2