From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 16 11:30:17 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315061065675 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:30:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@top-consulting.net) Received: from smtp1.emailarray.com (smtp1.emailarray.com [65.39.216.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCD08FC18 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7152 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2011 11:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (freebsd@top-consulting.net@192.168.1.6) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp1.emailarray.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 16 Sep 2011 11:30:13 -0000 Received: from modemcable238.94-200-24.mc.videotron.ca (modemcable238.94-200-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.200.94.238]) by mail.top-consulting.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20110916073013.37776ih29rdcux8o@mail.top-consulting.net> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:13 -0400 From: freebsd@top-consulting.net To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20110916063153.200375qdq59crf8c@mail.top-consulting.net> <4E732FDF.9080307@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E732FDF.9080307@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.7) X-Originating-IP: 24.200.94.238 X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Fri Sep 16 07:30:14 2011 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.7416 X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 288 chance of being spam X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 1,4e73334611845090116656 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, compression+and, 0.01000, NFS, 0.01000, use+>, 0.01000, /data, 0.01000, /data, 0.01000, References*gmail.com>, 0.01000, Url*questions, 0.99000, 2+93, 0.99000, bad+Is, 0.01000, a+mirror, 0.01432, Also+do, 0.02467, the+disks, 0.02748, >>+To, 0.02771, >+Did, 0.02984, and+>>, 0.04394, >>+>>, 0.04503, >>+>>, 0.04503, _______________________________________________, 0.04659, tests+with, 0.05794, system+but, 0.07370, server, 0.07822, FreeBSD, 0.09467, FreeBSD, 0.09467, Subject*Re, 0.09826, setup, 0.09893, setup, 0.09893, file+system, 0.09915 X-PolarisMail-Flags: x Subject: Re: FS of choice for max random iops ( Maildir ) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:30:17 -0000 Quoting Johan Hendriks : > freebsd@top-consulting.net schreef: >> I have a new server that I would like to use as a back-end Maildir >> storage shared through NFS. The specs are: >> >> FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 2 >> Xeon x3470 @ 2.93 quad-core CPU >> 4 GB Ram @ 1333mhz ( upgrading to 12GB tomorrow ) >> 3WARE 9650SE-16LP card with write cache enabled ( battery is installed ) >> 16 x WD RE3 1TB drives >> RAID 10 setup >> >> Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks ) >> separated in two pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest >> available to configure as storage. >> >> I've tried three options for the storage file system but I'm not >> sure which one is the best option since I can't really reproduce >> production conditions. I only ran tests with dd and bonnie and >> here's what I found: >> >> A. TEST1: dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/data/t1 count=1M >> >> 1. ZFS performed the worst, averaging 67MB/sec >> 2. UFS + gjournal did around 130MB/sec >> 3. UFS did around 190MB/sec >> >> B. TEST2 ( random file creation ): bonnie++ -d /data -c 10 -s 0 -n 50 -u 0 >> >> 1. UFS + gjournal performed the worst >> 2. ZFS performed somewhat better >> 3. UFS performed the best again ( about 50% better ) >> >> C. TEST3 ( sequential writing ): bonnie++ -d /data -c 10 -s 8088 -n 0 -u 0 >> >> 1. UFS + gjournal crashed the box >> 2. ZFS performed average >> 3. UFS performed better than ZFS ( about 50% better ) >> >> >> I really like the concepts behind ZFS and UFS + Journaling but the >> performance hit is quite drastic when compared to UFS. >> >> What I'm looking for here is max IOPS when doing random >> read/writes. Is UFS the best choice for this ? Do my results make >> sense ? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Did you use raidz1 2 or 3 or mirror for the ZFS ppol. > I believe that ZFS mirror gives you the best performance, but the > least actual space. > > If you did make a raidz[1,2,3] try it with a mirror pool. > > Also do not use the raid function of your raid controller if you use > ZFS, this way you loose the goodies of zfs. > If you setup ZFS use JBOD on the raid controller. > > > Gr > Johan > > I simply did a : zpool create data da1 and no zfs-level raid. I also created a dataset - tried both with lzjb compression and without - but the results were similar, aka bad. Is zfs supposed to be faster if you let it manage the disks directly ?