I have some old dd numbers from when I was experimenting to find a
UFS/gstripe combination that wasn't horrifyingly slow to read. I was
not then adjusting filesystem blocksize, and not until moving UFS2 bs to
the maximum did initial results seem worth resuming iozone tests. Raid
HW stripe-wi
Ivan Voras wrote:
Per my discussion with Scott Long Can you repeat the test for UFS, but
create gstripe with a really small stripe size, like 4 KB?
Actually, no need to do that - it looks like iozone is doing quite
random IO ops so it won't help you.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP dig
Benjeman Meekhof wrote:
Sure, here is an example iozone output when I tested UFS2. Same
hardware config as with ZFS test.
#gstripe label -v -s 128k test /dev/mfid0 /dev/mfid2
#newfs -U -b 65536 /dev/stripe/test
"Throughput report Y-axis is type of test X-axis is number of processes"
"Record
Sure, here is an example iozone output when I tested UFS2. Same
hardware config as with ZFS test.
#gstripe label -v -s 128k test /dev/mfid0 /dev/mfid2
#newfs -U -b 65536 /dev/stripe/test
"Throughput report Y-axis is type of test X-axis is number of processes"
"Record size = 512 Kbytes "
"Outp
Benjeman J. Meekhof wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I posted earlier about some results with this same system using UFS2.
> Now trying to test ZFS. This is a Dell PE2950 with two Perc6
> controllers and 4 md1000 disk shelves with 750GB drives. 16GB RAM, dual
> quad core Xeon. I recompiled our kernel to use the
Hi,
I posted earlier about some results with this same system using UFS2.
Now trying to test ZFS. This is a Dell PE2950 with two Perc6
controllers and 4 md1000 disk shelves with 750GB drives. 16GB RAM, dual
quad core Xeon. I recompiled our kernel to use the ULE scheduler instead
of default.
