Paul, could you please try to do your tests with recordsize=1m ?
Best regards, -Igor > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Paul Dagnelie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. I created a pool on 4 1TB HDDs, > and then created a filesystem with compression off (since i'm using random > data, it wouldn't help) and a edon-r for the checksum. I then create a number > of files of a given size using dd, creating 10 at a time in parallel. Once > the files are created, I export and import the pool to clear the cache, and > read in all the files, writing them to /dev/null. I ran that part 15 times, > timing it each time to get a decent performance measurement. Then I destroy > the filesystem, and go back to the fs creation step with new parameters. > > I ran a decent spectrum of tests, so hopefully some of this data will help > reassure you. The numbers across the top rows are the size of the files > created, and the numbers across the left are the number of files being read. > The times are the average of the 15 runs, in seconds. > > For recordsize=512: > Before 128k 1m 8m 64m After 128k 1m 8m > 64m > 10 0.09 0.36 2.88 21.70 10 0.07 0.33 2.89 20.21 > 40 0.29 1.55 11.93 86.50 40 0.24 1.46 10.94 83.53 > 160 1.14 6.08 50.10 361.76 160 0.93 6.23 44.20 342.40 > > For recordsize=8k: > Before 128k 1m 8m 64m After 128k 1m 8m > 64m > 10 0.05 0.16 0.64 3.89 10 0.07 0.16 0.72 3.61 > 40 0.25 0.59 3.02 17.72 40 0.20 0.68 3.46 15.96 > 160 0.69 2.79 12.43 68.86 160 0.76 2.59 14.47 59.43 > > For recordsize=128k: > Before 128k 1m 8m 64m After 128k 1m 8m > 64m > 10 0.04 0.10 0.53 3.58 10 0.05 0.11 0.64 4.32 > 40 0.14 0.37 2.31 17.94 40 0.14 0.45 2.62 16.95 > 160 0.59 1.67 9.81 60.39 160 0.56 1.77 10.42 61.90 > > It looks like performance is usually similar with the new bits, some slightly > better and some slightly worse. Those results may be within the margin of > error of each other, or there may be some pattern that explains why some runs > are slightly faster and some are slightly slower; I'm not sure. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/548#issuecomment-375374996>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOi0K619PuG-3HScm7LAhGe50gtPRRmQks5tg9TEgaJpZM4SGMaf>. > > openzfs <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/latest> / openzfs-developer > <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/members> / Permalink > <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T987f71bf0a7c33f4-M50a62e81c12093e0307c840a>Delivery > options <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups> ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T987f71bf0a7c33f4-M9e030568d2f37c30c92ed08b Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
