From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 17 10:53:52 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619DB106566B for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:53:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38268FC27 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:53:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MGsm3-0004Zf-HF for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:53:47 +0000 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 ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:53:47 +0000 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:53:47 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:53:37 +0200 Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090615) In-Reply-To: Sender: news Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS performance on 7.2-release/amd64 low compared to UFS2 + SoftUpdates X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:53:52 -0000 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: Unless you have 512 MB of memory in the machine or you're trying to test caching, the benchmark you did is useless. In your environment, you need at least "-s 4096". Even with those issues solved, it's semi-useless since you did both tests on the same drive, on different parts of it (see "diskinfo -vt ad0" or whatever your drive is to see how different parts of the drive have different performance). To make an objective comparison you need two identical drives, and create a new empty small-ish partition (e.g. 15 GB) on the same position on both (e.g. at the start), then use this partition only for benchmarking (not for the OS, etc). > 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 I did my own testing on the early import of ZFS, the results in bonnie++ were that read and rewrite speeds are significantly better on ZFS than on UFS+SU (50%+), while write speed is a bit slower (~~10%). There are of course other workloads than the sequential that need to be reviewed. For example, blogbench places ZFS again at about 50% better than UFS+SU, while randomio makes it 50% slower. Untarring the ports tree on ZFS is about 3x faster than on UFS+SU.