[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/12/2007 04:47:06 PM:
> Management here is worried about performance under ZFS because they had
> a bad experience with Instant Image a number of years ago. When iiamd
> was used, server performance was reduced to a crawl. Hence they want
> proof in the form of benchmarking that zfs snapshots will not adversely
> affect system performance. They suggested creating, snapshotting,
> copying and generally messing about with some 1 gb files. The system is
> an E450 running snv_52 with a 36 gb boot drive, 142 Gb data drive and
> two 9 gb SAN partitions, one on slow disk, one on fast. The 36 gb is
> formatted ufs, everything else zfs.
>
> I time mkfile'ing a 1 gb file on ufs and copying it, then did the same
> thing on each zfs partition. Then I took snapshots, copied files, more
> snapshots, keeping timings all the way. I could find no appreciable
> performance hit.
>
> Is this a sufficient, valid test?
>
I believe mkfile is creating the file padded with zeros; and that ZFS has
short-curcuts to avoid storing actual data for such empty files. That
would lead me to believe that this is an invalid test.
-Wade
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the system manager. This message contains confidential
> information and is intended only for the individual named. If you
> are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute
> or copy this e-mail.
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
