Hello Wade, Thursday, April 12, 2007, 11:55:49 PM, you wrote:
WSfc> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/12/2007 04:47:06 PM: >> Management here is worried about performance under ZFS because they had >> a bad experience with Instant Image a number of years ago. When iiamd >> was used, server performance was reduced to a crawl. Hence they want >> proof in the form of benchmarking that zfs snapshots will not adversely >> affect system performance. They suggested creating, snapshotting, >> copying and generally messing about with some 1 gb files. The system is >> an E450 running snv_52 with a 36 gb boot drive, 142 Gb data drive and >> two 9 gb SAN partitions, one on slow disk, one on fast. The 36 gb is >> formatted ufs, everything else zfs. >> >> I time mkfile'ing a 1 gb file on ufs and copying it, then did the same >> thing on each zfs partition. Then I took snapshots, copied files, more >> snapshots, keeping timings all the way. I could find no appreciable >> performance hit. >> >> Is this a sufficient, valid test? >> WSfc> I believe mkfile is creating the file padded with zeros; and that ZFS has WSfc> short-curcuts to avoid storing actual data for such empty files. That WSfc> would lead me to believe that this is an invalid test. Only if you turn a compression on in ZFS. Other than that 0s are stored as any other data. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
