On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:12:32 +0100
Ivan Voras wrote:
> I've also noticed it is bursty - this can be moderated by tuning
> vfs.zfs.txg.timeout and vfs.zfs.vdev.max_pending. But I think you
> must agree that 210 MB/s on a single drive looks impossible :) I get
> that much in a SAS RAID-10 configur
On 10/01/2011 14:07, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100
Ivan Voras wrote:
It depends - since ZFS is logging all the time it doesn't have to
seek as much; if all transactions are WRITE and given sequentially,
they will be written to the drive sequentially, even with full fsync
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100
Ivan Voras wrote:
> It depends - since ZFS is logging all the time it doesn't have to
> seek as much; if all transactions are WRITE and given sequentially,
> they will be written to the drive sequentially, even with full fsync
> semantics. But 75k IOPS is a bit
On 07/01/2011 16:23, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hi,
Having in mind that a SAS enterprise disk normally can handle 150-180IOPS, this
benchmark is testing something else ;)
It depends - since ZFS is logging all the time it doesn't have to seek
as much; if all transactions are WRITE and given sequen
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 06:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> The results came out like this:
>
> EXT3 - ~3000 tps
> EXT4 - ~3800 tps
> XFS - ~ 1800 tps
> ZFS - 75000 tps
ZFS seems very good at keeping the disk busy with lots of buffering - on
my machine gstat shows the disk at 100% for severa
nt with ZFS due to the gobs of memory on the machine.
Paul
From: "dieter...@engineer.com"
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 7:33:39 PM
Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
Paul:
> EXT3 -
Paul:
EXT3 - ~3000 tps
EXT4 - ~3800 tps
XFS - ~ 1800 tps
ZFS - 75000 tps
The result for FFS w/softdeps seems to have been lost in the mail. :-(
Mark:
They certainly have earned the title Moronix either way.
For me, getting a debugging flag wrong (assuming they did, there seems
to be some q
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:19:05 -0600
"Mark Felder" wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:19:30 -0600, Bruce Cran
> wrote:
>
> > People seem to forget that debugging is turned off before the RC
> > builds are done, which is what Phoronix tested (8.0 RC1).
>
> The GENERIC kernel has DEBUG=-g enabled; pe
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:19:05 -0600
"Mark Felder" wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:19:30 -0600, Bruce Cran
> wrote:
>
> > People seem to forget that debugging is turned off before the RC
> > builds are done, which is what Phoronix tested (8.0 RC1).
>
> The GENERIC kernel has DEBUG=-g enabled; pe
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:19:30 -0600, Bruce Cran wrote:
People seem to forget that debugging is turned off before the RC builds
are done, which is what Phoronix tested (8.0 RC1).
The GENERIC kernel has DEBUG=-g enabled; perhaps this is what he is
referring to?
They certainly have earned the
Hi,
Having in mind that a SAS enterprise disk normally can handle 150-180IOPS, this
benchmark is testing something else ;)
Well there is a one thing which is clear from almost every Phoronix benchmark -
Linux is heavily optimized ... for unpacking the linux kernel :)
On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM,
cox
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 9:40:15 AM
Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
On 7 January 2011 09:12, Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were tuning.
>
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:39:00 +0100
"Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> Some time ago Phoronix compared a FreeBSD with kernel debugging turned
> on to an Ubuntu to show that FreeBSD is slow and Linuxes way faster.
> Since then I have privately dubbed that site Moronix.
People seem to forget that debugg
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 06:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were
> tuning.
Some time ago Phoronix compared a FreeBSD with kernel debugging turned
on to an Ubuntu to show that FreeBSD is slow and Linuxes way faster.
Since then
On 7 January 2011 09:12, Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were tuning.
> I
> used FreeBSD with ZFS to make a point to people using Debian on EXT3, EXT4,
> XFS
> just two years ago. They were interested in total throughput and TPS. Well,
of the box. All SMP and all 64 bit OS.
Paul Pathiakis
Systems Architect/Sr Admin/Geek
All around nice guy.
From: Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz>
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 6:41:07 AM
Subject: Phoronix comparision of
Another filesystem benchmark from Phoronix. This time comparing HAMMER,
UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4 and Btrfs on DragonFly BSD, PC-BSD and Ubuntu.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=dragonfly_hammer
I think it is almost useless test if systems were crippled to UP,
because of bad SMP p
17 matches
Mail list logo
