Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: 3510 HW RAID vs 3510 JBOD ZFS SOFTWARE RAID
Hello Luke, Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 4:48:38 PM, you wrote: LL Does snv44 have the ZFS fixes to the I/O scheduler, the ARC and the prefetch logic? LL These are great results for random I/O, I wonder how the sequential I/O looks? LL Of course you'll not get great results for sequential I/O on the 3510 :-) filebench/singlestreamread v440 1. UFS, noatime, HW RAID5 6 disks, S10U2 70MB/s 2. ZFS, atime=off, HW RAID5 6 disks, S10U2 (the same lun as in #1) 87MB/s 3. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, S10U2 130MB/s 4. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, snv_44 133MB/s ps. With software RAID-Z I got about 940ms/s : well, after files were created they were all cached and ZFS almost didn't touch a disks :) ok, I changed filesize to be well over memory size of the server and above results are with that larger filesize. filebench/singlestreamwrite v440 1. UFS, noatime, HW RAID-5 6 disks, S10U2 70MB/s 2. ZFS, atime=off, HW RAID-5 6 disks, S10U2 (the same lun as in #1) 52MB/s 3. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, S10U2 148MB/s 4. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, snv_44 147MB/s So sequential writing in ZFS on HWR5 is actually worse than UFS. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: 3510 HW RAID vs 3510 JBOD ZFS SOFTWARE RAID
Robert, On 8/8/06 9:11 AM, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. UFS, noatime, HW RAID5 6 disks, S10U2 70MB/s 2. ZFS, atime=off, HW RAID5 6 disks, S10U2 (the same lun as in #1) 87MB/s 3. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, S10U2 130MB/s 4. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, snv_44 133MB/s Well, the UFS results are miserable, but the ZFS results aren't good - I'd expect between 250-350MB/s from a 6-disk RAID5 with read() blocksize from 8kb to 32kb. Most of my ZFS experiments have been with RAID10, but there were some massive improvements to seq I/O with the fixes I mentioned - I'd expect that this shows that they aren't in snv44. - Luke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: 3510 HW RAID vs 3510 JBOD ZFS SOFTWARE RAID
Hello Matthew, Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 7:25:17 PM, you wrote: MA On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:11:09PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: filebench/singlestreamread v440 1. UFS, noatime, HW RAID5 6 disks, S10U2 70MB/s 2. ZFS, atime=off, HW RAID5 6 disks, S10U2 (the same lun as in #1) 87MB/s 3. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, S10U2 130MB/s 4. ZFS, atime=off, SW RAID-Z 6 disks, snv_44 133MB/s MA FYI, Streaming read performance is improved considerably by Mark's MA prefetch fixes which are in build 45. (However, as mentioned you will MA soon run into the bandwidth of a single fiber channel connection.) I will probably re-test with snv_45 (waiting for SX). FC is not that big problem - if I will find enough time I will just add another FC cards. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
