Roch - PAE wrote:
I've just generated some data for an upcoming blog entry on the subject. This is about a small file tar extract :All times are elapse (single 72GB SAS disk) Local and memory based filesystems tmpfs : 0.077 sec ufs : 0.25 sec zfs : 0.12 sec NFS service that can end up corrupting client's view of data: nfs/ufs : 7 sec (write cache enable) nfs/zfs : 4.2 sec (write cache enable, zil_disable=1) nfs/zfs : 4.7 sec (write cache disable, zil_disable=1) NFS service that will not corrupt the client's view: nfs/ufs : 17 sec (write cache disable) nfs/zfs : 12 sec (write cache disable, zil_disable=0) nfs/zfs : 7 sec (write cache enable, zil_disable=0)
That is very interesting data since it actually has ZFS being faster that UFS in all cases which isn't what I've heard people claim.
If you haven't already done so it would be interesting to add UFS/SVM in there as well just for "completeness".
It would also be interesting to see how each RAID style compares here and what the numbers are when "rewritting" the files (for example unpack the tar file on top of itself rather than into a "fresh" filesystem).
-- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
