On 9/25/07 3:37 AM, "Sergiy Kolodka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Guys, > > I'm playing with Blade 6300 to check performance of compressed ZFS with Oracle > database. > After some really simple tests I noticed that default (well, not really > default, some patches applied, but definitely noone bother to tweak disk > subsystem or something else) installation of S10U3 is actually faster than > S10U4, and a lot faster. Actually it's even faster on compressed ZFS with > S10U3 than on uncompressed with S10U4. > > My configuration - default Update 3 LiveUpgraded to Update 4 with ZFS > filesystem on dedicated disk, and I'm working with same files which are on > same physical cylinders, so it's not likely a problem with HDD itself. > Did you do a 'zpool upgrade -a'? > I'm doing as simple as just $time dd if=file.dbf of=/dev/null in few parallel > tasks. On Update3 it's somewhere close to 11m32s and on Update 4 it's around > 12m6s. And it's both reading from compressed or uncompressed ZFS, numbers a > little bit higher with compressed, couple of seconds more, which impressive by > itself, but difference is the same, and strangest part is that reading file > from compressed ZFS on U3 is faster than reading uncompressed with U4. > > I'm really surprised by this results, anyone else noticed that ? > I'm running a 'motley group of disks' on an e450 acting as our jumpstart server and server build times are noticeably quicker since u4. > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -Andy -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
