Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:40:07 -0500
From:      Joe Koberg <joe@osoft.us>
To:        Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: ZFS performance on 7.2-release/amd64 low compared to UFS2 +  SoftUpdates
Message-ID:  <4A390E57.9010701@osoft.us>
In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee00906170034q1cee4581hb518f53e9f368368@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <cf9b1ee00906170034q1cee4581hb518f53e9f368368@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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"
>
>   



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A390E57.9010701>