On 10/30/06, Jay Grogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ran 3 test using mkfile to create a 6GB on a ufs and ZFS file system.
command ran mkfile -v 6gb /ufs/tmpfile
Test 1 UFS mounted LUN (2m2.373s)
Test 2 UFS mounted LUN with directio option (5m31.802s)
Test 3 ZFS LUN (Single LUN in a pool) (3m13.126s)
Sunfire V120
1 Qlogic 2340
Solaris 10 06/06
Attached to Hitachi 9990 (USP) LUNS are Open L's at 33.9 GB, plenty of cache
on the HDS box disk are in a Raid5 .
New to ZFS so am I missing something the standard UFS write bested ZFS by a
minute. ZFS iostat showed about 50 MB a sec.
Do you find this surprising? Why? A ZFS pool has additional overhead
relative to a simple filesystem -- the metadata is duplicated, and
metadata and data blocks are checksummed. ZFS gives higher
reliability, and better integration between the levels, but it's *not*
designed for maximizing disk performance without regard to
reliability.
Also, stacking it on top of an existing RAID setup is kinda missing
the entire point!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
