Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated
>> notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5" hard disk and -
>> of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB
>> altogether.
>> Now, first I installed UFS; then wiped everything to install the full
>> ZFS-beauty. And I can't say that there was a noticeable difference
>> between the two in respect to subjective speed behaviour.
>>
>
> I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one
> on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade
> 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.)
>
> The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is
> initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data.
>
>
Mine was just a rough observation, and I can't give you numbers.
Probably it is not characteristic, since it doesn't serve any data
('desktop on notebook'), and the bottleneck could be elsewhere (Centrino
1.4). The ZFS on there is close to Ubuntu (it is a quadro-boot on that
drive) in its responsiveness, the system load with a Firefox window and
abiword is something of 0.2. Caching is probably not critical here.
Uwe
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
