From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 10 12:49:22 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C33D106566B for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:49:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432FC8FC16 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:49:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PcHBZ-0001ca-29 for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:21 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:21 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100 Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <52B3EE9B-9B4A-4F96-ADE3-83F56135183D@moneybookers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: <52B3EE9B-9B4A-4F96-ADE3-83F56135183D@moneybookers.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:49:22 -0000 On 07/01/2011 16:23, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Hi, > > Having in mind that a SAS enterprise disk normally can handle 150-180IOPS, this benchmark is testing something else ;) 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 :)