On 12-Jun-07, at 9:02 AM, eric kustarz wrote:
Comparing a ZFS pool made out of a single disk to a single UFS
filesystem would be a fair comparison.
What does your storage look like?
The storage looks like:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
tank ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
All disks are local SATA/300 drives with SATA framework on marvell
card. The SATA drives are consumer drives with 16MB cache.
I agree it's not a fair comparison, especially with raidz over 6
drives. However, a performance difference of 10x is fairly large.
I do not have a single drive available to test ZFS with and compare
it to UFS, but I have done similar tests in the past with one ZFS
drive without write cache, etc. vs. a UFS drive of the same brand/
size. The difference was still on the order of 10x slower for the
ZFS drive over NFS. What could cause such a large difference? Is
there a way to measure NFS_COMMIT latency?
Cheers,
Siegfried
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
