Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:12:42 +1000 From: Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org> To: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: read/write benchmarking: UFS2 vs ZFS vs EXT3 vs ZFS RAIDZ vs Linux MDRAID Message-ID: <4A4725FA.80505@modulus.org> In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee00906261636m5d09966ag6d7e1b7557ada709@mail.gmail.com> References: <cf9b1ee00906261636m5d09966ag6d7e1b7557ada709@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Contiguous Write Performance: > http://virtual.tehinterweb.net/livejournal/2009-06-22_zfs_diskperf/zfs-diskperf-contig-write.png What confuses me about these results is that the '5 disk' performance was barely higher than the 'single disk' performance. All figures are also lower than I get from a single modern SATA disk. My own testing with dd from /dev/zero with FreeBSD ZFS an Intel ICH10 chipset motherboard with Core2duo 2.66ghz showed RAIDZ performance scaling linearly with number of disks: What Write Read -------------------------------- 7 disk RAIDZ2 220 305 6 disk RAIDZ2 173 260 5 disk RAIDZ2 120 213 Only the on-board controllers were used, with Seagate disks of around 250GB capacity. System had 8GB RAM. These results are so different in absolute terms to your results that I don't know how to interpret your set. - Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A4725FA.80505>