On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 15:28 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > # zfs set recordsize=2K tank/bench
> > # randomio bigfile 10 .25 .01 2048 60 1
> >
> > total | read: latency (ms) | write:latency (ms)
> >iops |
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 13:07 -0700, eric kustarz wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> >
> > Uh, whoops. As I freely admit this is my first encounter with
> > opensolaris, I just built the software on the assumption that it would
> > be 64-bi
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 12:07 -0700, eric kustarz wrote:
> Hey jwb,
>
> Thanks for taking up the task, its benchmarking so i've got some
> questions...
>
> What does it mean to have an external vs. internal journal for ZFS?
This is my first use of ZFS, so be gentle. External == ZIL on a
separat
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 13:57 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> >> To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS (which
> >> ones are useful depends on the type of metadata workload) - you can tr
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:37 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:51 -0700
> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html
>
> FFSB:
> Could you send the patch to fix FFSB Solaris b
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:33 -0400, Jim Mauro wrote:
> Your numbers are in the 50-90MB/second range, or roughly 1/2 to 1/4
> what was
> measured on the other 2 file systems for the same test. Very odd.
>
Yeah it's pretty odd. I'd tend to blame the Areca HBA, but then I'd
also point out that the H
I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days,
and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based
entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I'm not afraid of
ext4's newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for
years. So a-bench
