This certainly isn't the case on my machine. $ /usr/bin/time dd if=/test/filebench/largefile2 of=/dev/null bs=128k count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out
real 1.3 user 0.0 sys 1.2 # /usr/bin/time dd if=/dev/dsk/c0t0d0 of=/dev/null bs=128k count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out real 22.3 user 0.0 sys 2.2 This looks like 56 MB/s on the /dev/dsk and 961 MB/s on the pool. My pool is configured into a 46 disk RAID-0 stripe. I'm going to omit the zpool status output for the sake of brevity. > What I am seeing is that ZFS performance for sequential access is > about 45% of raw disk access, while UFS (as well as ext3 on Linux) is > around 70%. For workload consisting mostly of reading large files > sequentially, it would seem then that ZFS is the wrong tool > performance-wise. But, it could be just my setup, so I would > appreciate more data points. This isn't what we've observed in much of our performance testing. It may be a problem with your config, although I'm not an expert on storage configurations. Would you mind providing more details about your controller, disks, and machine setup? -j _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
