<http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/mysql-zfs.html#MySQL_Performance_Comparison:_ZFS_vs._UFS_on_Open_Solaris
>
Quoting:
ZFS introduces remarkable ease and flexibility of administration,
without any real cost in performance. At its worst, in these tests,
ZFS performed almost as well as UFS with Direct I/O. With InnoDB, the
ZFS performance curve suggests a new strategy of "set the buffer pool
size low, and let ZFS handle the data buffering." I did not test
Falcon, since it was not yet in Beta when I ran the benchmarks, but a
similar strategy for Falcon on ZFS might be to concentrate on the row
cache but minimize the page cache. And although double-buffering
problems are clearly visible in this ZFS performance curve, even with
those problems at their worst, ZFS still outperformed UFS. The real
reason for the good performance on this benchmark is not clear --
indeed, every workload will be different -- but the ZFS I/O scheduler,
the Sun engineers paying attention to database performance, and the
ZFS bug fixes contributed in recent (late 2007) releases of Open
Solaris seem to be adding up to something good.
Note that "Project Indiana" has shipped:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2007-October/000732.html
>
<http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug110107-story03.html>
<http://www.blastwave.org/articles/BLS-0061/index.html>
_______________________________________________
LUAU@lists.hosef.org mailing list
http://lists.hosef.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luau
