Yea. I did bs sizes from 8 to 512k with counts from 256 on up. I just added zeros to the count, to try to test performance for larger files. I didn't notice any difference at all, either with the dtrace script or zpool iostat. Thanks for you help, btw.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pa...@iki.fi> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:21:15AM -0700, artiepen wrote: >> 40MB/sec is the best that it gets. Really, the average is 5. I see 4, 5, 2, >> and 6 almost 10x as many times as I see 40MB/sec. It really only bumps up to >> 40 very rarely. >> >> As far as random vs. sequential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I used dd >> to make files from /dev/zero, wouldn't that be sequential? I measure with >> zpool iostat 2 in another ssh session while making files of various sizes. >> > > Yep, dd will generate sequential IO. > Did you specify blocksize for dd? (bs=1024k for example). > > As a default dd does 4 kB IOs.. which won't be very fast. > > -- Pasi > >> This is a test system. I'm wondering, now, if I should just reconfigure with >> maybe 7 disks and add another spare. Seems to be the general consensus that >> bigger raid pools = worse performance. I thought the opposite was true... >> -- >> This message posted from opensolaris.org >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Curtis E. Combs Jr. System Administrator Associate University of Georgia High Performance Computing Center ceco...@uga.edu Office: (706) 542-0186 Cell: (706) 206-7289 Gmail Chat: psynoph...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
