dd uses a default block size of 512B. Does this map to your expected usage ? When I quickly tested the CPU cost of small read from cache, I did see that ZFS was more costly than UFS up to a crossover between 8K and 16K. We might need a more comprehensive study of that (data in/out of cache, different recordsize & alignment constraints ). But for small syscalls, I think we might need some work in ZFS to make it CPU efficient.
So first, does small sequential write to a large file, matches an interesting use case ? -r _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
