> And some results (for OLTP workload): > > http://przemol.blogspot.com/2007/08/zfs-vs-vxfs-vs-ufs > -on-scsi-array.html
While I was initially hardly surprised that ZFS offered only 11% - 15% of the throughput of UFS or VxFS, a quick glance at Filebench's OLTP workload seems to indicate that it's completely random-access in nature without any of the sequential-scan activity that can *really* give ZFS fits. The fact that you were using an underlying hardware RAID really shouldn't have affected these relationships, given that it was configured as RAID-10. It would be interesting to see your test results reconciled with a detailed description of the tests generated by the Kernel Performance Engineering group which are touted as indicating that ZFS performs comparably with other file systems in database use: I actually don't find that too hard to believe (without having put all that much thought into it) when it comes to straight OLTP without queries that might result in sequential scans, but your observations seem to suggest otherwise (and the little that I have been able to infer about the methodology used to generate some of the rosy-looking ZFS performance numbers does not inspire confidence in the real-world applicability of those internally-generated results). - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
