Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-08 Thread Richard Elling
On May 7, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn >> >> Has someone done real-world measurements which indicate that raidz* >> actually provides better sequential read or

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-07 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Mon, 7 May 2012, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Apparently I pulled it down at some point, so I don't have a URL for you anymore, but I did, and I posted. Long story short, both raidzN and mirror configurations behave approximately the way you would hope they do. That is... Approximately, as com

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-07 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus > > Even with uncompressable data I measure better performance with > compression turned on rather than off. *cough* ___ zfs-discus

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-07 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > Has someone done real-world measurements which indicate that raidz* > actually provides better sequential read or write than simple > mirroring with the same number of disks

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-05 Thread Richard Elling
On May 5, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2012, Erik Trimble wrote: >> predictable, and the backing store is still only giving 1 disk's IOPS. The >> RAIDZ* may, however, give you significantly more throughput (in MB/s) than a >> single disk if you do a lot of sequentia

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-05 Thread Erik Trimble
On 5/5/2012 8:04 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2012, Erik Trimble wrote: predictable, and the backing store is still only giving 1 disk's IOPS. The RAIDZ* may, however, give you significantly more throughput (in MB/s) than a single disk if you do a lot of sequential read or write.

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-05 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Fri, 4 May 2012, Erik Trimble wrote: predictable, and the backing store is still only giving 1 disk's IOPS. The RAIDZ* may, however, give you significantly more throughput (in MB/s) than a single disk if you do a lot of sequential read or write. Has someone done real-world measurements wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-04 Thread Erik Trimble
On 5/4/2012 1:24 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: I think you'll get better, both performance& reliability, if you break each of those 15-disk raidz3's into three 5-disk raidz1's. Here's why: Incorrect on reliability; see below. Now, to put

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-04 Thread Peter Tribble
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > I think you'll get better, both performance & reliability, if you break each > of those 15-disk raidz3's into three 5-disk raidz1's.  Here's why: Incorrect on reliability; see below. > Now, to put some numbers on this... > A single 1T

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-04 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:35:45AM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > > > System is a 240x2TB (7200RPM) system in 20 Dell MD1200 JBODs. 16 vdevs of > > 15 > > disks each --

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-03 Thread Gary
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Given the amount of ram you have, I really don't think you'll be able to get > any useful metric out of iozone in this lifetime. I still think it would be apropos if dedup and compression were being used. In that case, does filebench have

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-03 Thread Paul Kraus
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus >> >>     If you have compression turned on (and I highly recommend turning >> it on if you have the CPU power to handle i

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-03 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > Zfs is all about caching so the cache really does need to be included > (and not intentionally broken) in any realistic measurement of how the > system will behave. I agree

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-03 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus > > If you have compression turned on (and I highly recommend turning > it on if you have the CPU power to handle it), What if he's storing video files, compressed files, or en

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-03 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > System is a 240x2TB (7200RPM) system in 20 Dell MD1200 JBODs. 16 vdevs of > 15 > disks each -- RAIDZ3. NexentaStor 3.1.2. I think you'll get better, both performance & rel

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Richard Elling
more comments... On May 1, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:18:18AM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Ray Van Dolson wrote: >> >>> I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a >>> feel for baseline performance. >> >

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Ray Van Dolson wrote: Testing multi-threaded synchronous writes with IOzone might actually mean something if it is representative of your work-load. Sounds like IOzone may not be my best option here (though it does produce pretty graphs). bonnie++ actually gave me more rea

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Paul Kraus
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Gary wrote: > The idea of benchmarking -- IMHO -- is to vaguely attempt to reproduce > real world loads. Obviously, this is an imperfect science but if > you're going to be writing a lot of small files (e.g. NNTP or email > servers used to be a good real world exam

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Gary
On 5/1/12, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > The problem is this box has 144GB of memory. If I go with a 16GB file > size (which I did), then memory and caching influences the results > pretty severely (I get around 3GB/sec for writes!). The idea of benchmarking -- IMHO -- is to vaguely attempt to reprodu

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:18:18AM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a > > feel for baseline performance. > > Unfortunately, benchmarking with IOzone is a very poor indicator of > wha

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:21:05AM -0700, Gary Driggs wrote: > On May 1, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > Throughput: > >iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls > > > > IOPS: > >iozone -O -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -e -+n -r 128K -s 288G > iops.txt > > Do you expect to be r

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Ray Van Dolson wrote: I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a feel for baseline performance. Unfortunately, benchmarking with IOzone is a very poor indicator of what performance will be like during normal use. Forcing the system to behave lik

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Paul Kraus
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a > feel for baseline performance. If you have compression turned on (and I highly recommend turning it on if you have the CPU power to handle it), the IOzone data will

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

2012-05-01 Thread Gary Driggs
On May 1, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > Throughput: >iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls > > IOPS: >iozone -O -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -e -+n -r 128K -s 288G > iops.txt Do you expect to be reading or writing 36 or 288Gb files very often on this array? The largest file