Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-04-01 Thread tomwaters
If you see the workload on the wire go through regular patterns of fast/slow response then there are some additional tricks that can be applied to increase the overall throughput and smooth the jaggies. But that is fodder for another post... Can you pls. elaborate on what can be done here as I

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-04-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:43 AM, tomwaters wrote: If you see the workload on the wire go through regular patterns of fast/slow response then there are some additional tricks that can be applied to increase the overall throughput and smooth the jaggies. But that is fodder for another post...

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-26 Thread Erik Ableson
On 25 mars 2010, at 22:00, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote: Hi, Indeed the 3 disks per vdev (raidz2) seems a bad idea...but it's the system i have now. Regarding the performance...let's assume that a bonnie++ benchmark could go to 200 mg/s in. The possibility of getting the same

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-26 Thread Bruno Sousa
Hi, I think that in this case the cpu is not the bottleneck, since i'm not using ssh. However my 1gb network link probably is the bottleneck. Bruno On 26-3-2010 9:25, Erik Ableson wrote: On 25 mars 2010, at 22:00, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote: Hi, Indeed the 3 disks per vdev

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-26 Thread Bruno Sousa
Hi, The jumbo-frames in my case give me a boost of around 2 mb/s, so it's not that much. Now i will play with link aggregation and see how it goes, and of course i'm counting that incremental replication will be slower...but since the amount of data would be much less probably it will still

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-26 Thread Richard Elling
On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi, The jumbo-frames in my case give me a boost of around 2 mb/s, so it's not that much. That is about right. IIRC, the theoretical max is about 4% improvement, for MTU of 8KB. Now i will play with link aggregation and see how it goes,

[zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-25 Thread Bruno Sousa
Hi all, The more readings i do about ZFS, and experiments the more i like this stack of technologies. Since we all like to see real figures in real environments , i might as well share some of my numbers .. The replication has been achieved with the zfs send / zfs receive but piped with mbuffer

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-25 Thread Bruno Sousa
Thanks for the tip..btw is there any advantage with jbod vs simple volumes? Bruno On 25-3-2010 21:08, Richard Jahnel wrote: BTW, if you download the solaris drivers for the 52445 from adaptec, you can use jbod instead of simple volumes. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-25 Thread Ian Collins
On 03/26/10 08:47 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi all, The more readings i do about ZFS, and experiments the more i like this stack of technologies. Since we all like to see real figures in real environments , i might as well share some of my numbers .. The replication has been achieved with the

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-25 Thread Bruno Sousa
Hi, Indeed the 3 disks per vdev (raidz2) seems a bad idea...but it's the system i have now. Regarding the performance...let's assume that a bonnie++ benchmark could go to 200 mg/s in. The possibility of getting the same values (or near) in a zfs send / zfs receive is just a matter of putting ,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-25 Thread Ian Collins
On 03/26/10 10:00 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: [Boy top-posting sure mucks up threads!] Hi, Indeed the 3 disks per vdev (raidz2) seems a bad idea...but it's the system i have now. Regarding the performance...let's assume that a bonnie++ benchmark could go to 200 mg/s in. The possibility of