From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Tue Nov 17 22:16:50 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86B8A31B25; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:16:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from csforgeron@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4B5A1AC1; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:16:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from csforgeron@gmail.com) Received: by igl9 with SMTP id 9so89456405igl.0; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:16:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZqYhpOA4p8OqAB18n4A7qXMvcv4PiZYCMTTjb5p5y9c=; b=B67t4ECi11+EzQYrQu+V2v3h2pJa3pfdnJeRuOHs/C1c7zAhEoicBJH4eNGnh13dyu oYfotPEIeHjzaz0M1xIDNvMf+4HuflAsm0Raxdfq/yIZpvxOgFXMDcEkRZRDnZ/tGh74 qCGm7srNNQJAHpX8jirrBPERlD6fNFWtDRQ5oxGq089JYlvxh591YbVHQ5H2rBbUjDb/ kYzenvDy9l50jtuwCPlc7LWI+SIpOz3/MHIfPJ/idBSmYXHc2un22I6CHjh5cNiCvItz ExH6cwLOzKfZrJRuXvMGUB1QEEMcTGbK3Eq1tvZ+nE7hK8BaOs7semnhWqOku2Ii4FOF FQ2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.56.114 with SMTP id z18mr4474564igp.62.1447798610172; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.159.67 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:16:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <21685.40094.453028.585630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <21685.40094.453028.585630@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 18:16:50 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Some filesystem performance numbers From: Christopher Forgeron To: Garrett Wollman Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems , FreeBSD stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:16:51 -0000 Sounds interesting. I'd love to see your results when you're ready to share, or even the 'work in progress' if you want to share privately . On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > I recently bought a copy of the SPECsfs2014 benchmark, and I've been > using it to test out our NFS server platform. One scenario of > interest to me is identifying where the limits are in terms of the > local CAM/storage/filesystem implementation versus bottlenecks unique > to the NFS server, and to that end I've been running the benchmark > suite directly on the server's local disk. (This is of course also > the way you'd benchmark for shared-nothing container-based > virtualization.) > > I have found a few interesting results on my test platform: > > 1) I can quantify the cost of using SHA256 vs. fletcher4 as the ZFS > checksum algorithm. On the VDA workload (essentially a simulated > video streaming/recording application), my server can do about half as > many "streams" with SHA256 as it can with fletcher4. > > 2) Both L2ARC and separate ZIL have small but measurable performance > impacts. I haven't examined the differences closely. > > 3) LZ4 compression also makes a small performance impact, but as > advertised, less than LZJB for mostly-incompressible data. > > I hope to be able to present the actual benchmark results at some > point, as well as some results for the other three workloads. > > -GAWollman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >