Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-15 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 05:28:28PM +, Jonathan Belson wrote: Hiya After reading some earlier threads about zfs performance, I decided to test my own server. I found the results rather surprising... Below are my results from my home machine. Note that my dd size a

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-15 Thread Freddie Cash
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Jonathan Belson wrote: > On 14/02/2010 17:28, Jonathan Belson wrote: > >> After reading some earlier threads about zfs performance, I decided to >> test my own server. I found the results rather surprising... >> > > Thanks to everyone who responded. I experiment

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-15 Thread Jonathan Belson
On 14/02/2010 17:28, Jonathan Belson wrote: After reading some earlier threads about zfs performance, I decided to test my own server. I found the results rather surprising... Thanks to everyone who responded. I experimented with my load.conf settings, leaving me with the following: vm.km

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-15 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 05:28:28PM +, Jonathan Belson wrote: > Hiya > > After reading some earlier threads about zfs performance, I decided to test > my own server. I found the results rather surprising... Below are my results from my home machine. Note that my dd size and count differ fro

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-15 Thread Lorenzo On The Lists
On 14.02.10 18:28, Jonathan Belson wrote: The machine is a Dell SC440, dual core 2GHz E2180, 2GB of RAM and ICH7 SATA300 controller. There are three Hitachi 500GB drives (HDP725050GLA360) in a raidz1 configuration (version 13). I'm running amd64 7.2-STABLE from 14th Jan. First of all, I tri

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-15 Thread Boris Samorodov
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:58:58 + Jonathan Belson wrote: > On 14 Feb 2010, at 21:15, Joshua Boyd wrote: > > Here are my relevant settings: > > > > vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable=0 ^^ [1] > I already had prefetch disabled, but ... Just a note: prefetch is not disabled here

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Joshua Boyd
Here's my bonnie++ results: foghornleghorn# bonnie++ -s 8192 -d. -n64 -uroot Using uid:0, gid:0. Writing a byte at a time...done Writing intelligently...done Rewriting...done Reading a byte at a time...done Reading intelligently...done start 'em...done...done...done...done...done... Create files i

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Joshua Boyd
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Joshua Boyd wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jonathan Belson wrote: > >> On 14 Feb 2010, at 21:15, Joshua Boyd wrote: >> >> > Repeated the same tests on my AMD64 dual core 4GB system with 5 HD103SI >> 1T >> > drives in raidz1 on a Supermicro PCI-E con

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Jonathan Belson
On 14 Feb 2010, at 21:15, Joshua Boyd wrote: > Repeated the same tests on my AMD64 dual core 4GB system with 5 HD103SI 1T > drives in raidz1 on a Supermicro PCI-E controller, running 8-STABLE. [ snip results ] I was hoping I'd get something closer to these figures... > Here are my relevant sett

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Joshua Boyd
Repeated the same tests on my AMD64 dual core 4GB system with 5 HD103SI 1T drives in raidz1 on a Supermicro PCI-E controller, running 8-STABLE. foghornleghorn# dd if=/dev/zero of=/usr/zerofile.000 bs=1M count=200 200+0 records in 200+0 records out 209715200 bytes transferred in 4.246402 secs (4938

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Michael Loftis
--On Sunday, February 14, 2010 5:28 PM + Jonathan Belson wrote: Hiya After reading some earlier threads about zfs performance, I decided to test my own server. I found the results rather surprising... You really need to test with at least 4GB of data, else you're just testing cach

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Jonathan Belson
On 14 Feb 2010, at 20:26, Jonathan Belson wrote: > On 14 Feb 2010, at 19:13, Artem Belevich wrote: >> Can you check if kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.memory_throttle_count sysctl >> increments during your tests? >> >> ZFS self-throttles writes if it thinks system is running low on >> memory. Unfortunat

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Jonathan Belson
On 14 Feb 2010, at 19:13, Artem Belevich wrote: > Can you check if kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.memory_throttle_count sysctl > increments during your tests? > > ZFS self-throttles writes if it thinks system is running low on > memory. Unfortunately on FreeBSD the 'free' list is a *very* > conservative

Re: More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Artem Belevich
Can you check if kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.memory_throttle_count sysctl increments during your tests? ZFS self-throttles writes if it thinks system is running low on memory. Unfortunately on FreeBSD the 'free' list is a *very* conservative indication of available memory so ZFS often starts throttlin

More zfs benchmarks

2010-02-14 Thread Jonathan Belson
Hiya After reading some earlier threads about zfs performance, I decided to test my own server. I found the results rather surprising... The machine is a Dell SC440, dual core 2GHz E2180, 2GB of RAM and ICH7 SATA300 controller. There are three Hitachi 500GB drives (HDP725050GLA360) in a raidz