Hi.
Not strictly connected to your tests, but:
As of ZFS, we've had experience that it degrades over time after random
updates because of files becoming non-linear and sequential reads becomes
random.
Also there are Q about ZFS block size - setting it to 8K makes first problem
worse, setting it to
Hi,
The tests were made without the -s parameter, (so 1 is assumed). I'm running
the numbers
again on CentOS, with the optimized config and I'll test also different
scale values. I also will be able
to repeat the test again in FreeBSD with ZFS with the new options and
different scale,
but probably
Joao,
Wow, thanks for doing this!
In general, your tests seem to show that there isn't a substantial
penalty for using ZFS as of version 8.0.
If you have time for more tests, I'd like to ask you for a few more tweaks:
(1) change the following settings according to conventional wisdom:
This is not a rigorous test and should not be used as a direct comparison
between
operating systems. My objective was to estimate the ZFS toll in Postgres,
and
what to expect in performance, comparing to the old server this machine will
be replacing. Not all possible configurations were tested, an
