Sorry, I missed the "variable file sizes" part. So forget about my post.
Am 28.05.2013 um 16:27 schrieb dennis berger: > Hi, > for me it's unknown what 100 TPS means in that particular case. But this > doesn't make sense at all and I don't see such a low number in the postmark > output here. > > I think I get around 4690+-435 IOPS with 95% confidence. > > Guest and the actual test system is FreeBSD9.1/64bit inside of Virtualbox. > Host system is MacOSX on 4year old macbook > Storage is VDI file backed on a SSD (OCZ vortex 2) with a 2gb ZFS pool > > When you I postmark with 25K transactions I get an output like this. > (http://fsbench.filesystems.org/bench/postmark-1_5.c) > > pm>run > Creating files...Done > Performing transactions..........Done > Deleting files...Done > Time: > 6 seconds total > 5 seconds of transactions (5000 per second) > > Files: > 13067 created (2177 per second) > Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 12567 files (2513 per second) > 12420 read (2484 per second) > 12469 appended (2493 per second) > 13067 deleted (2177 per second) > Deletion alone: 634 files (634 per second) > Mixed with transactions: 12433 files (2486 per second) > > Data: > 80.71 megabytes read (13.45 megabytes per second) > 84.59 megabytes written (14.10 megabytes per second) > > I did this 100 times on my notebook and summed up this. > > root@freedb:/pool/nase # ministat -n *.txt > x alltransactions.txt > + appended-no.txt > * created-no.txt > % deleted-no.txt > # reed-no.txt > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > x 100 3571 5000 5000 4690.25 435.65125 > + 100 1781 2493 2493 2338.84 216.8531 > * 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 256.53752 > % 100 1633 2613 2613 2396.59 256.53752 > # 100 1774 2484 2484 2330.22 216.3084 > > > When I check "zpool iostat 1" I see > > root@freedb:/pool/nase # zpool iostat 1 > capacity operations bandwidth > pool alloc free read write read write > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 8 28 312K > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 33 0 4.09M > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 10.6M 1.97G 0 0 0 0 > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > pool 19.6M 1.97G 0 89 0 4.52M > ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > > > around 30-90 TPS bursts. > > Did they counted this instead? > > > -dennis > > > > > > > Am 28.05.2013 um 15:02 schrieb Paul Pathiakis: > >> Outperform at "out of the box" testing. ;-) >> >> So, if I have a "desktop" distro like PCBSD, the only thing of relevance is >> putting up my own web server???? (Yes, the benchmark showed PCBSD seriously >> kicking butt with Apache on static pages.... but why would I care on a >> desktop OS?) >> >> Personally, I found the whole thing lacking coherency and relevancy on just >> about anything. >> >> Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that this was done. However, there >> are compiler differences (It was noted many times that CLANG was used and it >> may have been a detriment but it doesn't go into the how or why.) and other >> issues. >> >> There was a benchmark on PostGreSQL, but I didn't see any *BSD results? >> >> Transactions to a disk? Does this measure the "bundling" effect of the >> "groups of transactions" of ZFS? That's a whole lot less transactions that >> are sent to disk. (Does anyone know any place where this can be found? >> That is, how does the whole "bundling of disk I/O" go from writing to >> memory, locking those writes, then sending all the info in one shot to the >> disk? This helps: >> http://blog.delphix.com/ahl/2012/zfs-fundamentals-transaction-groups/ ) >> >> I was working at a company that had the intention of doing "electronic asset >> ingestion and tagging". Basically, take any thing moved to the front end >> web servers, copy it to disk, replicate it to other machines, etc... (maybe >> not in that order) The whole system was java based. >> >> This was 3 years ago. I believe I was using Debian V4 (it had just come >> out.... I don't recall the names etch, etc) and I took a single machine and >> rebuilt it 12 times: OpenSuSe with ext2, ext3, xfs. Debian with ext2, >> ext3, xfs. CentOS with ext2, ext3, xfs. FreeBSD 8.1 with ZFS, UFS2 w/ SU. >> >> Well, the numbers came in and this was all done on the same HP 180 1u server >> rebuilt that many times. I withheld the FBSD results as the development was >> done on Debian and people were "Linux inclined". The requisite was for >> 15000 tpm per machine for I/O. Linux could only get to 3500. People were >> pissed and they were looking at 5 years and $20m in time and development. >> That's when I put the FBSD results in front of them..... 75,200 tpm. Now, >> this was THEIR measurements and THEIR benchmarks (The Engineering team). >> The machine was doing nothing but running flat out on a horrible method of >> using directory structure to organize the asset tags... (yeah, ugly) >> However, ZFS almost didn't care compared to a traditional filesystem. >> >> So, what it comes down do is simple.... you can benchmark anything you want >> with various "authoritative" benchmarks, but in the end, your benchmark on >> your data set (aka real world in your world) is the only thing that matters. >> >> BTW, what happened in the situation I described? Despite, a huge cost >> savings and incredible performance.... "We have to use Debian as we never >> put any type of automation in place that would allow us to be able to move >> from one OS to another"... Yeah, I guess a Systems Architect (like me) is >> something that people tend to overlook. System automation to allow nimble >> transitions like that are totally overlooked. >> >> Benchmarks are "nice". However, tuning and understanding the underlying >> tech and what's it's good for is priceless. Knowing there are memory >> management issues, scheduling issues, certain types of I/O on certain FS >> that cause it to sing or sob, these are the things that will make someone >> invaluable. No one should be a tech bigot. The mantra should be: "The >> best tech for the situation". No one should care if it's BSD, Linux, or >> Windoze if it's what works best in the situation. >> >> P >> >> PS - When I see how many people are clueless about how much tech is ripped >> off from BSD to make other vendors' products just work and then they slap at >> BSD.... it's pretty bad. GPLv3? Thank you... there are so many people >> going to a "no GPL products in house" policy that there is a steady increase >> in BSD and ZFS. I can only hope GPLv4 becomes "If you use our stuff, we own >> all the machines and code that our stuff coexists on" :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Adrian Chadd <[email protected]> >> To: O. Hartmann <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:03 AM >> Subject: Re: New Phoronix performance benchmarks between some Linuxes and >> *BSDs >> >> >> outperform at what? >> >> >> >> adrian >> >> On 28 May 2013 00:08, O. Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Phoronix has emitted another of its "famous" performance tests >>> comparing different flavours of Linux (their obvious favorite OS): >>> >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd_linux_8way&num=1 >>> >>> It is "impressive, too, to see that PHORONIX did not benchmark the >>> gaming performance - this is done exclusively on the Linux >>> distributions, I guess in the lack of suitable graphics cards at >>> Phronix (although it should be possible to compare the nVidia BLOB >>> performance between each system). >>> >>> Although I'm not much impressed by the way the benchmarks are >>> orchestrated, Phoronix is the only platform known to me providing those >>> from time to time benchmarks on most recent available operating systems. >>> >>> Also, the bad performance of ZFS compared to to UFS2 seems to have a >>> very harsh impact on systems were that memory- and performance-hog ZFS >>> isn't really needed. >>> >>> Surprised and really disappointing (especially for me personally) is >>> the worse performance of the Rodinia benchmark on the BSDs, for what I >>> try to have deeper look inside to understand the circumstances of the >>> setups and what this scientific benchmark is supposed to do and >>> measure. >>> >>> But the overall conclusion shown on Phoronix is that what I see at our >>> department which utilizes some Linux flavours, Ubuntu 12.01 or Suse and >>> in a majority CentOS (older versions), which all outperform the several >>> FreeBSd servers I maintain (FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE and FreeBSD >>> 10.0-CURRENT, so to end software compared to some older Linux kernels). >>> _______________________________________________ >>> [email protected] mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "[email protected]" >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "[email protected]" >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "[email protected]" > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Dennis Berger email: [email protected] mobile: +491791231509 fon: +494054001817 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
