Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:50:05 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Gary Gatten <Ggatten@waddell.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD & Software RAID Message-ID: <4A1CD48D.3020900@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905262119490.47364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <4A1AA3DC.5020300@network-i.net> <200905261238.52979.kirk@strauser.com> <70C0964126D66F458E688618E1CD008A0793ED91@WADPEXV0.waddell.com> <4A1C3725.8040509@infracaninophile.co.uk> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905262119490.47364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> You can make ZFS work on i386, but it requires very careful tuning and
>> is not
>> going to work brilliantly well for particularly large or high-throughput
>> filesystems.
>
> you mean "high transfer" like reading/writing huge files. anyway not
> faster than properly configured UFS+maybe gstripe/gmirror.
I mean high-throughput, as in bytes-per-second. Whether that consists of a
very large number of small files or fewer larger ones is pretty much immaterial.
> for small files it's only fast when they will fit in cache, same with UFS
For any files, it's a lot faster when they can be served out of cache. That's
true for any filesystem. It's only when you get beyond the capacity of your
caches that things get interesting.
I really don't have any hard data on ZFS performance relative to UFS + geom.
However my feeling is that UFS will win at small scales, but that ZFS will
close the gap as the scale increases, and that ZFS is the clear winner when
you consider things other than direct performance -- manageability, resilience
to hardware failure or disk errors, etc. Of course, "small scale" (ie. about
the same size as a single drive) is hundreds of GB nowadays, and growing.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkoc1JMACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwCtQCdEJGze4VTIkJwPCcYR6zRGHM2
y1QAn2v7dzHaCViW2gAQFRz1KI8bbRA+
=dLDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A1CD48D.3020900>