Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:12:32 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Message-ID: <igf0k0$hro$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20110110130703.000047b7@unknown> References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <52B3EE9B-9B4A-4F96-ADE3-83F56135183D@moneybookers.com> <igev84$8si$1@dough.gmane.org> <20110110130703.000047b7@unknown>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/01/2011 14:07, Bruce Cran wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100 > Ivan Voras<ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> It depends - since ZFS is logging all the time it doesn't have to >> seek as much; if all transactions are WRITE and given sequentially, >> they will be written to the drive sequentially, even with full fsync >> semantics. But 75k IOPS is a bit too much :) > > I've been doing some benchmarking using sysutils/fio recently. It seems > that for my desktop SATA disk (a Samsung F3) around 28-30k iops is about > the maximum, seen both on Windows 7 (NTFS) and FreeBSD (ZFS). > FreeBSD is much more bursty compared to Windows, getting 80k iops and > 210MB/s for a few seconds followed by several of 0. I've also noticed it is bursty - this can be moderated by tuning vfs.zfs.txg.timeout and vfs.zfs.vdev.max_pending. But I think you must agree that 210 MB/s on a single drive looks impossible :) I get that much in a SAS RAID-10 configuration.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?igf0k0$hro$1>