Write performance: For `recordsize=512`:
| Before |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| After |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| |---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:|---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:| |**10**|0.03|0.07|0.45|3.27|**10**|0.03|0.07|0.43|3.35| |**40**|0.11|0.29|1.68|34.28|**40**|0.11|0.29|1.66|27.49| |**160**|0.46|1.17|8.18|478.53|**160**|0.45|1.18|8.23|357.20| For `recordsize=8k`: | Before |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| After |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| |---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:|---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:| |**10**|0.00|0.00|0.16|1.09|**10**|0.00|0.00|0.16|1.08| |**40**|0.11|0.17|0.64|4.67|**40**|0.11|0.00|0.64|4.49| |**160**|0.46|0.70|2.72|19.08|**160**|0.46|0.70|2.69|22.66| For `recordsize=128k`: | Before |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| After |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| |---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:|---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:| |**10**|0.00|0.04|0.00|1.02|**10**|0.00|0.04|0.15|1.02| |**40**|0.12|0.17|0.61|4.18|**40**|0.11|0.17|0.61|4.22| |**160**|0.46|0.67|2.48|16.78|**160**|0.46|0.68|2.43|16.81| For `recordsize=1m`: | Before |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| After |128k| 1m| 8m| 64m| |---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:|---|:-----:|:---:|:----:|:-----:| |**10**|0.00|0.04|0.15|1.05|**10**|0.03|0.00|0.00|1.04| |**40**|0.11|0.18|0.62|4.27|**40**|0.11|0.17|0.62|4.24| |**160**|0.46|0.71|2.53|17.14|**160**|0.44|0.68|2.51|17.10| Similar to the read perf, or slightly better: Almost everything is the same or better, only a couple things are worse. Weirdly, 160 64m files for 8k and 128k are worse, but 512 and 1m are not. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/548#issuecomment-376961988 ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T987f71bf0a7c33f4-M13bb2b7a62de8118560a4e4c Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
