From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 18 18:07:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D502FA for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:07:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davide.damico@contactlab.com) Received: from mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it (mail2.shared.smtp.contactlab.it [93.94.37.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D2EE5E for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:07:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1363630046; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=zFFeV4LFNH7ZEAuvq7lRUEparnboqD8Fgviy7EG9jCc=; b=EI36Z+6LN4hALq2PhZ0nx6LogSslVc0TKp4vA4ZjLjGv3qOkkmbb0TXrceDiPCvu UrBTs65lQiZsNUnRXSsHJJwA7ipXZbjmySb56XUTF6Sxj+zQrXJ7l7dw+8SMjigj v9vHHqZjDtYocrT94sXV4LGrDR/mvxnfSpx/zjL/tO4=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:47135] helo=mail3.tomato.it) by t.contactlab.it (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTP id 5C/0C-24145-ED757415; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:07:26 +0100 Received: from mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan ([172.16.7.55]) by mail3.tomato.it with smtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1UHeT0-0006uO-El for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:07:26 +0100 Received: (qmail 26556 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2013 18:07:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO davepro.local) (127.0.0.1) by mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan with SMTP; 18 Mar 2013 18:07:26 -0000 Message-ID: <514757DD.9030705@contactlab.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:07:25 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland Subject: Re: FreBSD 9.1 and ZFS v28 performances References: <514729BD.2000608@contactlab.com> <810E5C08C2D149DBAC94E30678234995@multiplay.co.uk> <51473D1D.3050306@contactlab.com> <1DD6360145924BE0ABF2D0979287F5F4@multiplay.co.uk> <51474F2F.5040003@contactlab.com> <51475267.1050204@contactlab.com> In-Reply-To: <51475267.1050204@contactlab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:07:28 -0000 Il 18/03/13 18:44, Davide D'Amico ha scritto: > Il 18/03/13 18:42, Steven Hartland ha scritto: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Davide D'Amico" >> >> >>>> So RAID10 on just 6 disks in effect just 3 active spindles? If so >>>> then your >>>> throughput of 400MB/s is about right. >>> Well, my RAID10 is on 4 disk (2 spindle) so do I have 400MB/s (3GBps) >>> because the max throughput is 6Gbps? >> >> You'll be limited by the actual disks. For your disks this is stated >> as 122 to 204MB/s sustained. So if your getting 400MB/s your doing >> well :) >> > > Thanks, now it's clear. But now I do other tests using a lua script with sysbench with different setups: UFS on RAID10 HW: General statistics: total time: 36.1023s total number of events: 1 total time taken by event execution: 36.1002s UFS on 1 SSD: General statistics: total time: 36.3970s total number of events: 1 total time taken by event execution: 36.3948s ZFS (mirror mfid3 mfid4 mirror mfid5 mfid6): General statistics: total time: 78.0531s total number of events: 1 total time taken by event execution: 78.0509s ZFS with ZIL: General statistics: total time: 85.2306s total number of events: 1 total time taken by event execution: 85.2285s The workload is always the same (a set of 50k mysql myisam queries), and as you can see zfs is really slow compared to ufs, and I don't know why :( The latest check I should do is using a L2ARC, but I'll do tomorrow. Thanks, d.