-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hi Richard, ZFS-discuss.
> Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:49:18 -0800 > From: Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com> > To: Auke Folkerts <folke...@science.uva.nl> > Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Benchmarks results for ZFS + NFS, using > SSD's as slog devices (ZIL) > Message-ID: <40070921-f894-4146-9e4c-7570d52c8...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Some questions below... > > On Dec 23, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Auke Folkerts wrote: > Filling in for Auke here, >> > The raw data as well as the graphs that I created are available on >> > request, should people be interested. > > Yes, can you post somewhere? I've put the results here, tests are run under nv129: http://www.science.uva.nl/~jeroen/solaris11_iozone_nfs2zfs Original measurements (with iozone headers) are in: http://www.science.uva.nl/~jeroen/solaris11_iozone_nfs2zfs/originals/ > > Questions: > 1. Client wsize? We usually set these to 342768 but this was tested with CenOS defaults: 8192 (were doing this over NFSv3) > 2. Client NFS version? NFSv3 (earlier tests show about 15% improvement using v4, but we still use v3 in production). > 3. logbias settings? Throughput for runs labeled "throughput" otherwise defaults. > 4. Did you test with a Solaris NFS client? If not, why not? We didn't, because our production environment consists of Solaris servers and Linux/MS Windows clients. > UFS is a totally different issue, sync writes are always sync'ed. > > I don't work for Sun, but it would be unusual for a company to accept > willful negligence as a policy. Ambulance chasing lawyers love that > kind of thing. The Thor replaces a geriatric Enterprise system running Solaris 8 over UFS. For these workloads it beat the pants out of our current setup and somehow the "but you're safer now" argument doesn't go over very well :) We are under the impression that a setup that server NFS over UFS has the same assurance level than a setup using "ZFS without ZIL". Is this impression false? If it isn't then offering a tradeoff between "same assurance level as you are used to with better performance" or "better assurance level but for random-IO significant performance hits" doesn't seem too wrong to me. In the first case you still have the ZFS guarantees once data is "on disk"... Thanks in advance for your insights, With kind regards, Jeroen - -- Jeroen Roodhart IT Consultant University of Amsterdam j.r.roodh...@uva.nl Informatiseringscentrum Tel. 020 525 7203 - -- See http://www.science.uva.nl/~jeroen for openPGP public key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLMqKT37AP1zFtDU0RAxeCAKDcglo2n0Q8Sx0tGyzx+MEGJt90TwCfWm59 JbGdTavhenqSrQEtGUvPZaw= =K25S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
