What I'm saying is ZFS doesn't play nice with NFS in all the scenarios I could think of:
-Single second disk in a v210 (sun72g) write cache on and off = ~1/3 the performance of UFS when writing files using dd over an NFS mount using the same disk. -2 raid 5 volumes composing of 6 spindles each taking ~53 seconds to write 1gb over a NFS mounted zfs stripe,raidz or mirror of a storedge 6120 array with bbc, zil_disable'd and write cache off/on. In some testing dd would even seem to 'hang'. When any volslice is formatted UFS with the same NFS client - its ~17 seconds! We are likely going to just try iscsi instead, the behavior is non-existent. At some point though we would like to use ZFS based NFS mounts for things.. the current difference in performance just scares us! -Andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Roch - PAE Sent: Mon 4/23/2007 5:32 AM To: Leon Koll Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS+NFS on storedge 6120 (sun t4) Leon Koll writes: > Welcome to the club, Andy... > > I tried several times to attract the attention of the community to the > dramatic performance degradation (about 3 times) of NFZ/ZFS vs. ZFS/UFS > combination - without any result : <a > href="http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=98592";>[1]</a> , > <a href="http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=24015";>[2]</a>. > > Just look at two graphs in my <a > href="http://napobo3.blogspot.com/2006/08/spec-sfs-bencmark-of-zfsufsvxfs.html";>posting > dated August, 2006</a> to see how bad the situation was and, unfortunately, > this situation wasn't changed much recently: > http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7591/428/1600/sfs.1.png > > I don't think the storage array is a source of the problems you reported. > It's somewhere else... > Why do you say this ? My reading is that almost all NFS/ZFS complaints are either complaining about NFS performance vs direct attach, comparing UFS vs ZFS on disk with write cache enabled, or complaining about ZFS running on storage with NVRAM. Your complain is the one exception, SFS being worst with ZFS backend vs say UFS or VxFS. My points being: So NFS cannot match direct attach for some loads. It's a fact that we can't get around . Enabling the write cache gives is not a valid way to run NFS over UFS. ZFS on NVRAM storage, we need to make sure the storage does not flush the cache in response to ZFS requests. Then SFS over ZFS is being investigated by others within Sun. I believe we have stuff in the pipe to make ZFS match or exceed UFS on small server level loads. So I think your complaint is being heard. I personally find it always incredibly hard to do performance engineering around SFS. So my perspective is that improving the SFS numbers will more likely come from finding ZFS/NFS performance deficiencies on simpler benchmarks. -r > [i]-- leon[/i] > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
