From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 17 16:07:58 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C90B1065673; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:07:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@osoft.us) Received: from mail.osoft.us (osoft.us [67.14.192.59]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055BE8FC29; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:07:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@osoft.us) Received: from [10.0.1.100] (99-25-241-54.lightspeed.ltrkar.sbcglobal.net [99.25.241.54]) by mail.osoft.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FE633C54; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:40:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4A390E57.9010701@osoft.us> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:40:07 -0500 From: Joe Koberg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Naumov References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List Subject: Re: ZFS performance on 7.2-release/amd64 low compared to UFS2 + SoftUpdates X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:07:58 -0000 The difference in layout can easily explain a 2x difference in sequential transfer performance. I seriously doubt your disk is really getting 23K seeks/s done in the UFS case - 100/s sounds much more reasonable for real hardware. Perhaps the results of caching? Joe Koberg Dan Naumov wrote: > I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is > something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024: > > on UFS2 + SoftUpdates: > > -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- > Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU > 1024 56431 94.5 88407 38.9 77357 53.3 64042 98.6 644511 98.6 23603.8 243.3 > > on ZFS: > > -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- > Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU > 1024 22591 53.7 45602 35.1 14770 13.2 45007 83.8 94595 28.0 102.2 1.2 > > > atom# cat /boot/loader.conf > vm.kmem_size="1024M" > vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" > vfs.zfs.arc_max="96M" > > The test isn't completely fair in that the test on UFS2 is done on a > partition that resides on the first 16gb of a 2tb disk while the zfs > test is done on the enormous 1,9tb zfs pool that comes after that > partition (same disk). Can this difference in layout make up for the > huge difference in performance or is there something else in play? The > system is an Intel Atom 330 dualcore, 2gb ram, Western Digital Green > 2tb disk. Also what would be another good way to get good numbers for > comparing the performance of UFS2 vs ZFS on the same system. > > > Sincerely, > - Dan Naumov > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >