Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Ian Collins
On 09/27/11 10:59 AM, Tomas Forsman wrote: On 27 September, 2011 - Ian Collins sent me these 0,8K bytes: On 09/27/11 07:55 AM, Jesus Cea wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I just upgraded to Solaris 10 Update 10, and one of the improvements is "zfs diff". Using the "birt

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Tomas Forsman
On 27 September, 2011 - Ian Collins sent me these 0,8K bytes: > On 09/27/11 07:55 AM, Jesus Cea wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I just upgraded to Solaris 10 Update 10, and one of the improvements >> is "zfs diff". >> >> Using the "birthtime" of the sectors, I wou

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Ian Collins
On 09/27/11 07:55 AM, Jesus Cea wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I just upgraded to Solaris 10 Update 10, and one of the improvements is "zfs diff". Using the "birthtime" of the sectors, I would expect very high performance. The actual performance doesn't seems better that

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Nico Williams
Ah yes, of course. I'd misread your original post. Yes, disabling atime updates will reduce the number of superfluous transactions. It's *all* transactions that count, not just the ones the app explicitly caused, and atime implies lots of transactions. Nico -- ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On 09/26/11 12:31, Nico Williams wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Jesus Cea wrote: >> Should I disable "atime" to improve "zfs diff" performance? (most data >> doesn't change, but "atime" of most files would change). > > atime has nothing to do with it. based on my experiences with time

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Jesus Cea wrote: "rsync" takes a bit less than 7 minutes. So "zfs diff" is actually slower!. It is important to define what is meant by "rsync". For example, a common rsync operating mode is to simply compare whole-file timestamps and file size in order to determine tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Jesus Cea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/09/11 22:54, Jesus Cea wrote: > On 26/09/11 22:29, David Magda wrote: >> Talking about "7.55 GB" is mostly useless as well. If it's a >> dozen video files then stat()ing them all with be done very >> quickly by just running find(1). If however th

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Jesus Cea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/09/11 21:31, Nico Williams wrote: > atime has nothing to do with it. > > How much work zfs diff has to do depends on how much has changed > between snapshots. That is what I thought, but look at my example: less than 20 changes and more than 1

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Jesus Cea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/09/11 22:29, David Magda wrote: > Talking about "7.55 GB" is mostly useless as well. If it's a dozen > video files then stat()ing them all with be done very quickly by > just running find(1). If however the 7.55 GB is made up of > 7,550,000 files

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread David Magda
On Mon, September 26, 2011 14:55, Jesus Cea wrote: [...] > real10m0.272s > user0m0.809s > sys 2m6.693s > """ > > 10 minutes to "diff" 7.55 GB is... disappointing. > > This machine uses a 2-mirror configurations, and there is no more > activity going on in the machine. ZPOOL version 29,

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Nico Williams
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Jesus Cea wrote: > I just upgraded to Solaris 10 Update 10, and one of the improvements > is "zfs diff". > > Using the "birthtime" of the sectors, I would expect very high > performance. The actual performance doesn't seems better that an > standard "rdiff", though

[zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

2011-09-26 Thread Jesus Cea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I just upgraded to Solaris 10 Update 10, and one of the improvements is "zfs diff". Using the "birthtime" of the sectors, I would expect very high performance. The actual performance doesn't seems better that an standard "rdiff", though. Quite disappo