One reason I was setting up another iSCSI target to create a zpool was to do some comparison of iscsi vs nfs, and ufs vs zfs.
So I have two pretty pathetic machines. Running S10U3 is a SunBlade 1500 (1Ghz US-IIIi); the targets are on an Ultra 60 running snv_54 with some old disk packs I scrounged together. So these no way constitute benchmarks, but I was interested in seeing what worked well and what worked badly. What I've tested is writing a large file using mkfile, and using unzip to unpack an archive containing lots of small files. Both are just write tests. The configurations tested were - local ufs on the internal disk in the SunBlade 1500; a ufs filesystem over iSCSI; a zfs filesystem over iSCSI; nfs to the same zpool that is backing the iSCSI targets; and nfs to a UFS filesystem exported by the Ultra 60 100m mkfile: local ufs - 2.758/2.708/2.416 iscsi ufs - 13.570/12.910/11.692 iscsi zfs - 1.322/1.647/0.809 nfs / zfs - 13.390/13.523/12.415 nfs / ufs - 9.624/9.080/9.100 Now, it hasn't made it to physical storage in under a second (that would be impressive given that it's only running over a 100M network), so the zfs case must include local caching. Apart from caching effects, the 100M network is clearly coming into play. unzip of apache ant: local ufs - 1.984/1.987/1.780 iscsi ufs - 5.497/5.304/4.578 iscsi zfs - 1.903/1.482/1.711 nfs / zfs - 1:32.679 nfs / ufs - 1:12.940 Ouch! I expected the nfs case to do badly (lots of small files, with COMMIT for each one). I'm very impressed with the numbers that iSCSI is giving me. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ storage-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
