From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 20 12:24:26 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17DFEE2 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:24:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461A9343 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:24:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UII41-0003bO-L5 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:24:18 +0100 Received: from [81.21.138.17] (helo=ronaldradial.versatec.local) by smtp.greenhost.nl with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UII41-0001qs-EY for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:24:17 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreBSD 9.1 and ZFS v28 performances References: <514729BD.2000608@contactlab.com> <810E5C08C2D149DBAC94E30678234995@multiplay.co.uk> <51473D1D.3050306@contactlab.com> <1DD6360145924BE0ABF2D0979287F5F4@multiplay.co.uk> <51474F2F.5040003@contactlab.com> <51475267.1050204@contactlab.com> <514757DD.9030705@contactlab.com> <42B9D942BA134E16AFDDB564858CA007@multiplay.co.uk> <1bfdea0efb95a7e06554dadf703d58e7@sys.tomatointeractive.it> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:24:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.14 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: ++++++++ X-Spam-Score: 8.2 X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40, IN_PBL_AND_BAYES_40, RCVD_IN_SBL autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: a8ecdd0179e5342c74548fafd5461917 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:24:26 -0000 On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:34:16 +0100, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Davide D'Amico wrote: >>> While running the tests what sort of thing are you >>> seeing from gstat, any disks maxing? If so primarily >>> read or write? >> Here the r/w pattern using zpool iostat 2: > > Using 'zpool iostat 2' is not likely to be very useful since zfs writes > all of is data in bursts and may wait up to 5 seconds to do so. > > If your benchmark uses synchronous writes and does continous updates, > then you should see zfs writing continiously to your zil device (or the > pool). > > Bob Zpool iostat 2 still prints the per-second-speed. So it is the amount of data divided by 2. It is easier to reason about it if you use zpool iostat 1. Ronald.