10 May
2018
10 May
'18
3:12 p.m.
greetings, all!
wondering if anyone has experience using a ZFS raidZ2 disk pool for
audio. i'm talking about a LOCAL pool, running on ZOL
(http://zfsonlinux.org/) -- NOT a LAN-connected dedicated server.
here's an interesting test case, which seems to show entirely adequate
throughput for multichannel audio applications:
https://bit.ly/2ryO9xr
(that's with openZFS on freeBSD, but i'm assuming performance should be
similar on linux)
looking forward to any thoughts y'all might have on this!
cheers!
.pltk.
--
Peter Lutek - improvising musician in Toronto, Canada
http://peterlutek.com
10 May
10 May
3:28 p.m.
On 2018-05-10T09:12:44 -0400
Peter Lutek <peter(a)peterlutek.com> wrote:
greetings, all!
wondering if anyone has experience using a ZFS raidZ2 disk pool for
audio. i'm talking about a LOCAL pool, running on ZOL
(http://zfsonlinux.org/) -- NOT a LAN-connected dedicated server.
here's an interesting test case, which seems to show entirely adequate
throughput for multichannel audio applications:
https://bit.ly/2ryO9xr
(that's with openZFS on freeBSD, but i'm assuming performance should be
similar on linux)
looking forward to any thoughts y'all might have on this!
Had extremely positive experiences with it about eight years ago. I
used to produce some gcc packages for FreeBSD, and that meant having
about four gcc builds running in the background at any given time. I'd
regularly do this and *still* have glitch-free audio whilst the builds
were going on. This was on an early Core i7 machine with a three-disk
zraid array (two disks striped plus parity). I think part of the
reason it seems so fast is that the built-in compression seems to
reduce traffic on the SATA bus quite considerably.
I have no experience running ZFS on Linux though. I've resigned myself
to running ext4 there. Still running ZFS on FreeBSD to handle file
serving and backups though.
--
Mark Raynsford | http://www.io7m.com
3:51 p.m.
On Thu, 10 May 2018 09:12:44 -0400
Peter Lutek <peter(a)peterlutek.com> wrote:
greetings, all!
wondering if anyone has experience using a ZFS raidZ2 disk pool for
audio. i'm talking about a LOCAL pool, running on ZOL
(http://zfsonlinux.org/) -- NOT a LAN-connected dedicated server.
Hi, Peter. I have not used a ZFS pool for audio work, but I used to
work in the ZFS group at Oracle. RAIDZ2 optimizes your available space
at the price of performance. If I was going to record multiple tracks in
a DAW to a ZFS pool, I'd be using a mirrored pool.
The ZFS RAID levels are designed to spread the load around, and bog down
with a small number of drives. Given that this is a local pool we're talking
about, we're likely talking about 4 or 5 drives in the pool at best. You
might be OK given that the pool is dedicated to the machine, but I'd test it
thoroughly. I'd avoid RAIDZ1 - there's insufficient redundancy and has led to
occasional data loss.
Depending on the devices, you might be OK - a pool of SSDs will be better
than a pool of spinning drives, for example. If you only ever record a max
of 2 tracks at a time, you'll also likely be fine.
This is based on my experiences with big loads on a ZFS storage appliance;
you may have a very different experience with the local pool under Linux.
Good luck!
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
11 May
11 May
6:11 p.m.
Hi,
I knew a systems engineer at Oracle who used Solaris with ZFS for an
8T or so music file server. He ripped his CD collection onto it, and
performance was fine. I'm not sure whether he used raidz{1,2} or
mirroring, but like Joe said, your best bet is to try mirroring. If
you want the highest performance you can possibly squeeze out of
linux, I would recommend doing some benchmarking of various
combinations of md, lvm, and different filesystems with the type of
workload you intend to use.
Regards,
Phil Garcia
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018 09:12:44 -0400
Peter Lutek <peter(a)peterlutek.com> wrote:
greetings, all!
wondering if anyone has experience using a ZFS raidZ2 disk pool for
audio. i'm talking about a LOCAL pool, running on ZOL
(http://zfsonlinux.org/) -- NOT a LAN-connected dedicated server.
Hi, Peter. I have not used a ZFS pool for audio work, but I used to
work in the ZFS group at Oracle. RAIDZ2 optimizes your available space
at the price of performance. If I was going to record multiple tracks in
a DAW to a ZFS pool, I'd be using a mirrored pool.
The ZFS RAID levels are designed to spread the load around, and bog down
with a small number of drives. Given that this is a local pool we're talking
about, we're likely talking about 4 or 5 drives in the pool at best. You
might be OK given that the pool is dedicated to the machine, but I'd test it
thoroughly. I'd avoid RAIDZ1 - there's insufficient redundancy and has led to
occasional data loss.
Depending on the devices, you might be OK - a pool of SSDs will be better
than a pool of spinning drives, for example. If you only ever record a max
of 2 tracks at a time, you'll also likely be fine.
This is based on my experiences with big loads on a ZFS storage appliance;
you may have a very different experience with the local pool under Linux.
Good luck!
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:19 p.m.
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:11:36 -0400
"A. P. Garcia" <a.phillip.garcia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I knew a systems engineer at Oracle who used Solaris
with ZFS for an
8T or so music file server. He ripped his CD collection onto it, and
performance was fine. I'm not sure whether he used raidz{1,2} or
mirroring, but like Joe said, your best bet is to try mirroring.
If the use-case is simply for playing audio files, RAIDZ2 would be OK.
Recording multiple channels into Ardour or a similar DAW would likely be
problematic on RAIDZ2, though.
I would recommend doing some benchmarking of various
combinations of md, lvm, and different filesystems with the type of
workload you intend to use.
Absolutely! Sizing the ZFS appliance to a workload was always a huge part
of the configuration. It was always interesting to try and help engineers
explain to managers why their 200TB storage appliance only had less than
half that amount of storage as usable space.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
2208
days inactive
2209
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
A. P. Garcia -
Joe Hartley -
Mark Raynsford -
Peter Lutek