Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:43:36 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS of choice for max random iops ( Maildir ) Message-ID: <j4vcp8$89v$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20110916063153.200375qdq59crf8c@mail.top-consulting.net> References: <20110916063153.200375qdq59crf8c@mail.top-consulting.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16/09/2011 12:31, freebsd@top-consulting.net wrote: > 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 ? Your tests do look a bit odd - ZFS usually does better on sequential and UFS on random IO (rw mix). For random IO I'd go with UFS. Try comparing with blogbench.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?j4vcp8$89v$1>