> Stefan Urbat wrote: > > zfs --- the performance of [EMAIL PROTECTED] is indeed rather > poor (much worse > > than ufs), but this is another, already documented > and bug entry > > "honoured" issue. >
> Really? Are you allowing ZFS to use the entire disk > (and thus turn on > the disk's write cache)? > No, I couldn't, because a seemingly correct upgrade trial from Sol 10 u1 to u2 failed: from the original disk I couldn't boot afterwards any more (library issues :( ). So I had to use the second, newly inserted IDE disk opposed to my intention to install Sol10u2 newly, with unavoidable ufs slices for the root file system and some others, and created just one slice there for zfs; the data of the first disk (the ufs file systems there are still usable) must be preserved. > Can you describe your > workload and give > numbers on both ZFS and UFS? > I can give you rough numbers about it: the nightly build took for the same amount of data about 7 hours (ufs), now 9,5 hours (zfs). It is running now from the second but the first disk, but both ar usual 7200 rpm IDE disks, the first the in-build Barracuda 80 GB, the second a more recent Samsung 200 GB. Due to a strange phenomenon I can use only 32 GB on the second disk currently (BOOTROM?), so it could be in principle, that the true reason is a too slow operating second disk indeed. I can't compare currently ufs and zfs on the very same disk in this regard. But I may test it now, being more aware of the potential issue. > What bug was filed? > 6421427 is nfs related, but another forum member thought, that it is in fact a general IDE performance bottleneck behind, and was only made visible in this case. There is a report, that on an also with simple IDE equipped Blade 150 the same issue with low performance is visible: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=57201 This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
