On 3/9/2010 1:55 PM, Matt Cowger wrote:
> That's a very good point - in this particular case, there is no option to
> change the blocksize for the application.
>
>
I have no way of guessing the effects it would have, but is there a
reason that the filesystem blocks can't be a multiple of the app
Ross Walker [mailto:rswwal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Roch Bourbonnais
Cc: Matt Cowger; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Roch Bourbonnais
wrote:
>
&
Could you retest it with mmap() used?
Olga
2010/3/9 Matt Cowger :
> It can, but doesn't in the command line shown below.
>
> M
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:04 PM, "ольга крыжановская" anov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
>>
>> Olga
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:57 AM, M
Which IO library do you use? If you use stdio you could use the libast
stdio implementation which allows to set the block size via
environment variables.
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Matt Cowger wrote:
> That's a very good point - in this particular case, there is no option to
> change t
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Roch Bourbonnais
wrote:
I think This is highlighting that there is extra CPU requirement to
manage small blocks in ZFS.
The table would probably turn over if you go to 16K zfs records and
16K reads/writes form the application.
Next step for you is to figure
That's a very good point - in this particular case, there is no option to
change the blocksize for the application.
On 3/9/10 10:42 AM, "Roch Bourbonnais" wrote:
>
> I think This is highlighting that there is extra CPU requirement to
> manage small blocks in ZFS.
> The table would probably tur
I think This is highlighting that there is extra CPU requirement to
manage small blocks in ZFS.
The table would probably turn over if you go to 16K zfs records and
16K reads/writes form the application.
Next step for you is to figure how much reads/writes IOPS do you
expect to take in the
On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Matt Cowger wrote:
> Ross is correct - advanced OS features are not required here - just the
> ability to store a file - don’t even need unix style permissions
KISS. Just use tmpfs, though you might also consider limiting its size.
-- richard
ZFS storage and per
, March 09, 2010 6:23 AM
To: ольга крыжановская
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:46 PM, ольга крыжановская wrote:
> tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4 ACL support. May not be
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:46 PM, ольга крыжановская anov...@gmail.com> wrote:
tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4 ACL support. May not be the
best choice if such features are required.
True, but if the OP is looking for those features they are more then
unlikely looking for an in-memory fi
tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4 ACL support. May not be the
best choice if such features are required.
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On 03/08/10 17:57, Matt Cowger wrote:
>>
>> Change zfs options to turn off checksumming (don't want it or need it),
>> at
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
> if you have an actual need for an in-memory filesystem, will tmpfs fit
> the bill?
>
> - Bill
Very good point bill - just ran this test and started to get the numbers I was
expecting (1.3 GB
is.org] On Behalf Of Matt Cowger
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:58 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I've got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdisk..ZFS is per
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>> Same deal for UFS, replacing the ZFS stuff with newfs stuff and mounting the
>> UFS forcedirectio (no point in using a buffer cache memory for something
>> that’s already in memory)
>
> Did you also set primarycache=none?
> -- richard
Good
On Mar 8, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Matt Cowger wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> It looks like I’ve got something weird going with zfs performance on a
> ramdisk….ZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
>
> Short version:
>
> Create 80+ GB ramdisk (ramdiskadm), system has 96GB, so we aren’t
It can, but doesn't in the command line shown below.
M
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:04 PM, "ольга крыжановская" wrote:
> Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
>
> Olga
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Matt Cowger
> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> It looks like I’ve got something weird going with zf
On 03/08/10 17:57, Matt Cowger wrote:
Change zfs options to turn off checksumming (don't want it or need it), atime,
compression, 4K block size (this is the applications native blocksize) etc.
even when you disable checksums and compression through the zfs command,
zfs will still compress and
Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Matt Cowger wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
> It looks like I’ve got something weird going with zfs performance on a
> ramdisk….ZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
>
>
>
> Short version:
>
>
>
> Create 80+ GB ramd
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I've got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdiskZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
Short version:
Create 80+ GB ramdisk (ramdiskadm), system has 96GB, so we aren't swapping
Create zpool on it (zpool create ram)
Change zfs op
19 matches
Mail list logo
