Hi, On Dec 17, 2007 10:37 AM, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 ?
The pool holds home directories so small sequential writes to one large file present one of a few interesting use cases. The performance is equally disappointing for many (small) files like compiling projects in svn repositories. Cheers, Frank _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
