On 3/9/2010 1:55 PM, Matt Cowger wrote:
That's a very good point - in this particular case, there is no option to
change the blocksize for the application.
I have no way of guessing the effects it would have, but is there a
reason that the filesystem blocks can't be a multiple of the
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:46 PM, ольга крыжановская olga.kryzh
anov...@gmail.com wrote:
tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4 ACL support. May not be the
best choice if such features are required.
True, but if the OP is looking for those features they are more then
unlikely looking for an
, March 09, 2010 6:23 AM
To: ольга крыжановская
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:46 PM, ольга крыжановская olga.kryzh
anov...@gmail.com wrote:
tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4
On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Matt Cowger wrote:
Ross is correct - advanced OS features are not required here - just the
ability to store a file - don’t even need unix style permissions
KISS. Just use tmpfs, though you might also consider limiting its size.
-- richard
ZFS storage and
That's a very good point - in this particular case, there is no option to
change the blocksize for the application.
On 3/9/10 10:42 AM, Roch Bourbonnais roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
I think This is highlighting that there is extra CPU requirement to
manage small blocks in ZFS.
The table
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Roch Bourbonnais
roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
I think This is highlighting that there is extra CPU requirement to
manage small blocks in ZFS.
The table would probably turn over if you go to 16K zfs records and
16K reads/writes form the application.
Next
Could you retest it with mmap() used?
Olga
2010/3/9 Matt Cowger mcow...@salesforce.com:
It can, but doesn't in the command line shown below.
M
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:04 PM, ольга крыжановская olga.kryzh
anov...@gmail.com wrote:
Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010
Walker [mailto:rswwal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Roch Bourbonnais
Cc: Matt Cowger; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Roch Bourbonnais
roch.bourbonn
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I've got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdiskZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
Short version:
Create 80+ GB ramdisk (ramdiskadm), system has 96GB, so we aren't swapping
Create zpool on it (zpool create ram)
Change zfs
Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Matt Cowger mcow...@salesforce.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I’ve got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdisk….ZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
Short version:
Create
On 03/08/10 17:57, Matt Cowger wrote:
Change zfs options to turn off checksumming (don't want it or need it), atime,
compression, 4K block size (this is the applications native blocksize) etc.
even when you disable checksums and compression through the zfs command,
zfs will still compress
It can, but doesn't in the command line shown below.
M
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:04 PM, ольга крыжановская olga.kryzh
anov...@gmail.com wrote:
Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Matt Cowger mcow...@salesforce.com
wrote:
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I’ve
On Mar 8, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Matt Cowger wrote:
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I’ve got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdisk….ZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
Short version:
Create 80+ GB ramdisk (ramdiskadm), system has 96GB, so we aren’t
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Same deal for UFS, replacing the ZFS stuff with newfs stuff and mounting the
UFS forcedirectio (no point in using a buffer cache memory for something
that’s already in memory)
Did you also set primarycache=none?
-- richard
Good
Of Matt Cowger
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 8:58 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
Hi Everyone,
It looks like I've got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdisk..ZFS is performing not even a 3rd
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
if you have an actual need for an in-memory filesystem, will tmpfs fit
the bill?
- Bill
Very good point bill - just ran this test and started to get the numbers I was
expecting (1.3 GB/s
tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4 ACL support. May not be the
best choice if such features are required.
Olga
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Bill Sommerfeld sommerf...@sun.com wrote:
On 03/08/10 17:57, Matt Cowger wrote:
Change zfs options to turn off checksumming (don't want it or
17 matches
Mail list logo
