`<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Matej Zerovnik <<a href="mailto:matej@zunaj.si" class="">matej@zunaj.si</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;" class="">I will replace the hardwarw in about 4 months with all SAS drives, but I would love to have a working setup for the time being as well;)<br class=""><br class="">I looked at smart stats and there doesnt seem to be any errors. Also, no hard/soft/transfer error reported by any drive. Will take a look at service time tomorrow, maybe put the drives to graphite and look at them over a longer period.<br class=""><br class="">I looked at iostat -x status today and stats for pool itself reported 100% busy most of the time, 98-100% wait, 500-1300 transactions in queue, around 500 active,... First line, that is average from boot, says avg service <a href="http://time.is" class="">time.is</a> around 1600ms which seems like aaaalot. Can it be due to really big queue?<br class=""><br class="">Would it help to create 5 10drives raidz pools instead of one with 50 drives?<br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>It is a bad idea to build a single raidz set with 50 drives. Very bad. Hence the zpool</div><div>man page says, "The recommended number is between 3 and 9 to help increase performance."</div><div>But this recommendation applies to reliability, too.</div><div> -- richard</div></div><br class=""></body></html>`