BillTodd wrote: > In order to be reasonably representative of a real-world > situation, I'd suggest the following additions: >
Your suggestions (make the benchmark big enough so seek times are really noticed) are good. I'm hoping that over the holidays, I'll get to play with an extra server... If I'm lucky, I'll have 2x36GB drives (in a 1-2GB memory server) that I can dedicate to their own mirrored zfs pool. I figure a 30GB test file should make the seek times interesting. There's also a needed 5) Run the same microbenchmark against a UFS filesystem to compare the step2/step4 ratio with what a non-COW filesystem offers. In theory, the UFS ratio "should" be 1:1, that is, sequential read performance should not be affected by the intervening random writes. (In the case of my test server, I'll make it an SVM mirror of the same 2 drives) --Joe _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
