On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Christopher George wrote:

I mean this as constructive criticism, not as angry bickering. I totally
respect you guys doing your own thing.

Thanks, I'll try my best to address your comments...

*) At least updated benchmarks your site to compare against modern
   flash-based competition (not the Intel X25-E, which is seriously
   stone age by now...)

I completely agree we need to refresh the website, not even the photos are representative of our shipping product (we now offer VLP DIMMs).
We are engineers first and foremost, but an updated website is in the works.

In the mean time, we have benchmarked against both the Intel 320/710
in my OpenStorage Summit 2011 presentation which can be found at:


Very impressive iops numbers. Although I have some thoughts on the benchmarking method itself. Imho the comparison shouldn't be raw iops numbers on the ddrdrive itself as tested with iometer (it's only 4gb), but real world numbers on a real world pool consisting of spinning disks with ddrdrive acting as zil accelerator.

I just introduced an intel 320 120gb as zil accelerator for a simple zpool with two sas disks in raid0 configuration, and it's not as bad as in your presentation. It shows about 50% of the possible nfs ops with the ssd as zil versus no zil (sync=disabled on oi151), and about 6x-8x the performance compared to the pool without any accelerator and sync=standard. The case with no zil is the upper limit one can achieve on a given pool, in my case creation of about 750 small files/sec via nfs. With the ssd it's 380 files/sec (nfs stack is a limiting factor, too). Or about 2400 8k write iops with the ssd vs. 11900 iops with zil disabled, and 250 iops without accelerator (gnu dd with oflag=sync). Not bad at all. This could be just good enough for small businesses and moderate sized pools.


Michael Hase
edition-software GmbH
zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to