Re: [zfs-discuss] Info on OLTP Perf
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 08:37:23AM -0700, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote: > We did an experiment where we placed the logs on UFS+DIO and the > rest on ZFS. This was a write heavy benchmark. We did not see > much gain in performance by doing that (around 5%). I suspect > you would be willing to trade 5% for all the benefits of ZFS. > Moreover this penalty is for the current version, ZFS can/will > get much faster. > -neel Neel, I thought of the other solution: the logs on ZFS and rest on UFS+DIO. I suspect that writes on ZFS are faster then on UFS+DIO (in OLTP environment). przemol ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Info on OLTP Perf
We did an experiment where we placed the logs on UFS+DIO and the rest on ZFS. This was a write heavy benchmark. We did not see much gain in performance by doing that (around 5%). I suspect you would be willing to trade 5% for all the benefits of ZFS. Moreover this penalty is for the current version, ZFS can/will get much faster. -neel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:38:05PM +0200, Roch wrote: http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_oltp After reading this page and taking into consideration my (not so big) knowledge of ZFS it came to my mind that putting e.g. Oracle on both UFS+DIO _and_ ZFS would be the best solution _at_the_moment_. E.g redo logs and undo tablespace on ZFS (because its COW nature so that all writes to these files will go with full speed) and all the rest database files on UFS+DIO. What do you think ? przemol ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Info on OLTP Perf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:38:05PM +0200, Roch wrote: > > > > > >http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_oltp > > After reading this page and taking into consideration my (not so big) > knowledge > of ZFS it came to my mind that putting e.g. Oracle on both UFS+DIO _and_ > ZFS would be the best solution _at_the_moment_. E.g redo logs and undo > tablespace on ZFS (because its COW nature so that all writes to these > files will go with full speed) and all the rest database files on UFS+DIO. > > What do you think ? > You may gain some perf _today_ by using UFS/DIO at the expense of integrity/availability/ease of use. That would be the tradeoff. It's also given that mileage will vary. -r > przemol > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Info on OLTP Perf
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:38:05PM +0200, Roch wrote: > > > http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_oltp After reading this page and taking into consideration my (not so big) knowledge of ZFS it came to my mind that putting e.g. Oracle on both UFS+DIO _and_ ZFS would be the best solution _at_the_moment_. E.g redo logs and undo tablespace on ZFS (because its COW nature so that all writes to these files will go with full speed) and all the rest database files on UFS+DIO. What do you think ? przemol ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Info on OLTP Perf
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_oltp Performance, Availability & Architecture Engineering Roch BourbonnaisSun Microsystems, Icnc-Grenoble Senior Performance Analyst 180, Avenue De L'Europe, 38330, Montbonnot Saint Martin, France [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+33).4.76.18.83.20 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
