We loaded Nevada_78 on a peer T2000 unit. Imported the same ZFS pool. I didn't even upgrade the pool since we wanted to be able to move it back to 10u4. Cut 'n paste of my colleague's email with the results:
Here's the latest Pepsi Challenge results. Sol10u4 vs Nevada78. Same tuning options, same zpool, same storage, same SAN switch - you get the idea. The only difference is the OS. Sol10u4: 4984: 82.878: Per-Operation Breakdown closefile4 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 19us/op-cpu readfile4 404ops/s 6.3mb/s 0.1ms/op 109us/op-cpu openfile4 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.1ms/op 112us/op-cpu closefile3 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 25us/op-cpu fsyncfile3 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 18.7ms/op 1168us/op-cpu appendfilerand3 404ops/s 6.3mb/s 0.2ms/op 192us/op-cpu readfile3 404ops/s 6.3mb/s 0.1ms/op 111us/op-cpu openfile3 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.1ms/op 111us/op-cpu closefile2 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 24us/op-cpu fsyncfile2 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 19.0ms/op 1162us/op-cpu appendfilerand2 404ops/s 6.3mb/s 0.2ms/op 173us/op-cpu createfile2 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.3ms/op 334us/op-cpu deletefile1 404ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.2ms/op 173us/op-cpu 4984: 82.879: IO Summary: 318239 ops 5251.8 ops/s, (808/808 r/w) 25.2mb/s, 1228us cpu/op, 9.7ms latency Nevada78: 1107: 82.554: Per-Operation Breakdown closefile4 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 22us/op-cpu readfile4 1223ops/s 19.4mb/s 0.1ms/op 112us/op-cpu openfile4 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.1ms/op 128us/op-cpu closefile3 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 29us/op-cpu fsyncfile3 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 4.6ms/op 256us/op-cpu appendfilerand3 1223ops/s 19.1mb/s 0.2ms/op 191us/op-cpu readfile3 1223ops/s 19.9mb/s 0.1ms/op 116us/op-cpu openfile3 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.1ms/op 127us/op-cpu closefile2 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 28us/op-cpu fsyncfile2 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 4.4ms/op 239us/op-cpu appendfilerand2 1223ops/s 19.1mb/s 0.1ms/op 159us/op-cpu createfile2 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.5ms/op 389us/op-cpu deletefile1 1223ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.2ms/op 198us/op-cpu 1107: 82.581: IO Summary: 954637 ops 15903.4 ops/s, (2447/2447 r/w) 77.5mb/s, 590us cpu/op, 2.6ms latency That's a 3-4x improvement in ops/sec and average fsync time. Here are the results from our UFS software mirror for comparison: 4984: 211.056: Per-Operation Breakdown closefile4 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 23us/op-cpu readfile4 465ops/s 12.6mb/s 0.1ms/op 142us/op-cpu openfile4 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.1ms/op 83us/op-cpu closefile3 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 24us/op-cpu fsyncfile3 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 6.0ms/op 498us/op-cpu appendfilerand3 465ops/s 7.3mb/s 1.7ms/op 282us/op-cpu readfile3 465ops/s 11.1mb/s 0.1ms/op 132us/op-cpu openfile3 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.1ms/op 84us/op-cpu closefile2 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 0.0ms/op 26us/op-cpu fsyncfile2 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 5.9ms/op 445us/op-cpu appendfilerand2 465ops/s 7.3mb/s 1.1ms/op 231us/op-cpu createfile2 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 2.2ms/op 443us/op-cpu deletefile1 465ops/s 0.0mb/s 2.0ms/op 269us/op-cpu 4984: 211.057: IO Summary: 366557 ops 6049.2 ops/s, (931/931 r/w) 38.2mb/s, 912us cpu/op, 4.8ms latency So either we're hitting a pretty serious zfs bug, or they're purposely holding back performance in Solaris 10 so that we all have a good reason to upgrade to 11. ;) -Nick This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
