Hello Roch,
Friday, May 19, 2006, 3:53:35 PM, you wrote:
RBPE> Robert Milkowski writes:
>> Hello Roch,
>>
>> Monday, May 15, 2006, 3:23:14 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> RBPE> The question put forth is whether the ZFS 128K blocksize is sufficient
>> RBPE> to saturate a regular disk. There is great
Hello Roch,
Monday, May 22, 2006, 3:42:41 PM, you wrote:
RBPE> Robert Says:
RBPE> Just to be sure - you did reconfigure system to actually allow larger
RBPE> IO sizes?
RBPE> Sure enough, I messed up (I had no tuning to get the above data); So
RBPE> 1 MB was my max transfer sizes. Using
Robert Says:
Just to be sure - you did reconfigure system to actually allow larger
IO sizes?
Sure enough, I messed up (I had no tuning to get the above data); So
1 MB was my max transfer sizes. Using 8MB I now see:
Bytes Elapse of phys IO Size
Sent
8 MB; 357
Robert Milkowski writes:
> Hello Roch,
>
> Monday, May 15, 2006, 3:23:14 PM, you wrote:
>
> RBPE> The question put forth is whether the ZFS 128K blocksize is sufficient
> RBPE> to saturate a regular disk. There is great body of evidence that shows
> RBPE> that the bigger the write sizes a
Hello Roch,
Monday, May 15, 2006, 3:23:14 PM, you wrote:
RBPE> The question put forth is whether the ZFS 128K blocksize is sufficient
RBPE> to saturate a regular disk. There is great body of evidence that shows
RBPE> that the bigger the write sizes and matching large FS clustersize lead
RBPE> to
The question put forth is whether the ZFS 128K blocksize is sufficient
to saturate a regular disk. There is great body of evidence that shows
that the bigger the write sizes and matching large FS clustersize lead
to more throughput. The counter point is that ZFS schedules it's I/O
like nothing
Hello Robert,
Sunday, May 14, 2006, 10:55:42 PM, you wrote:
RM> Hello Roch,
RM> Friday, May 12, 2006, 5:31:10 PM, you wrote:
RBPE>> Robert Milkowski writes:
>>> Hello Roch,
>>>
>>> Friday, May 12, 2006, 2:28:59 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> RBPE> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> RBPE> Could you try 35 con
Hello Roch,
Friday, May 12, 2006, 5:31:10 PM, you wrote:
RBPE> Robert Milkowski writes:
>> Hello Roch,
>>
>> Friday, May 12, 2006, 2:28:59 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> RBPE> Hi Robert,
>>
>> RBPE> Could you try 35 concurrent dd each issuing 128K I/O ?
>> RBPE> That would be closer to how ZFS w
Robert Milkowski writes:
> Hello Roch,
>
> Friday, May 12, 2006, 2:28:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> RBPE> Hi Robert,
>
> RBPE> Could you try 35 concurrent dd each issuing 128K I/O ?
> RBPE> That would be closer to how ZFS would behave.
>
> You mean to UFS?
>
> ok, I did try and I get about
Hello Roch,
Friday, May 12, 2006, 2:28:59 PM, you wrote:
RBPE> Hi Robert,
RBPE> Could you try 35 concurrent dd each issuing 128K I/O ?
RBPE> That would be closer to how ZFS would behave.
You mean to UFS?
ok, I did try and I get about 8-9MB/s with about 1100 IO/s (w/s).
But what does it proof?
Hi Robert,
Could you try 35 concurrent dd each issuing 128K I/O ?
That would be closer to how ZFS would behave.
-r
Robert Milkowski writes:
> Well I have just tested UFS on the same disk.
>
> bash-3.00# newfs -v /dev/rdsk/c5t50E0119495A0d0s0
> newfs: construct a new file system /dev/rd
Well I have just tested UFS on the same disk.
bash-3.00# newfs -v /dev/rdsk/c5t50E0119495A0d0s0
newfs: construct a new file system /dev/rdsk/c5t50E0119495A0d0s0: (y/n)? y
mkfs -F ufs /dev/rdsk/c5t50E0119495A0d0s0 143358287 128 48 8192 1024 16 1 1
8192 t 0 -1 1 1024 n
Warning: 5810 sec
12 matches
Mail list logo
