I've updated the comment with a 1m table. On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Paul Dagnelie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Igor, I'm running it now. Should have results for you in a few hours. > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Igor Kozhukhov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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: >> Before128k1m8m64mAfter128k1m8m64m >> *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: >> Before128k1m8m64mAfter128k1m8m64m >> *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: >> Before128k1m8m64mAfter128k1m8m64m >> *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-M9e030568d2f37c30c92ed08b> >> Delivery >> options <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups> >> > > > > -- > Paul Dagnelie > -- Paul Dagnelie ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T987f71bf0a7c33f4-Mea923ba989a16177e89ea86d Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
