Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:07:03 +0000 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Message-ID: <20110110130703.000047b7@unknown> In-Reply-To: <igev84$8si$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <52B3EE9B-9B4A-4F96-ADE3-83F56135183D@moneybookers.com> <igev84$8si$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100 Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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 :) I've been doing some benchmarking using sysutils/fio recently. It seems that for my desktop SATA disk (a Samsung F3) around 28-30k iops is about the maximum, seen both on Windows 7 (NTFS) and FreeBSD (ZFS). FreeBSD is much more bursty compared to Windows, getting 80k iops and 210MB/s for a few seconds followed by several of 0. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110110130703.000047b7>