From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 29 10:51:19 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D5B106566C
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from grarpamp@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFF48FC12
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by eekd17 with SMTP id d17so1156143eek.13
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=u9pS8K7TsivqzGkWMQG6/T2JLbvUoM//K857LOsF6es=;
	b=WrdsLFuGpcPIAM8iBr+Q9bupr8DvK0ht/p25TEEonRiBrNHLV9dR4huweIwjebfeVX
	8noBCIVftmq+BHMEpztLYmj9twUrgKPfawzhoVMh6qyLEF87FVqxenZZStLHo/Jg4uKR
	khwqjS+jh0vmFNCwgQaljb8r2ybxcRZqiS+yMMiJVmIbhS4sQWQsHCATbhrpbyZ8VPAe
	N/JHef1VA154DpcYH7V5tGgonJll+iq+yzbnrMrRsu47srVAy+x7PYZojAs+mHBpxuBD
	8z7Hmx2TFAh8yKf2zpru5y6VzAUHr9FB1T5fk6GwDAt7mELUeafCSLkmJii7ReI1mk4s
	Gl5g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.24.7 with SMTP id q7mr4440675wif.11.1333018277456; Thu, 29
	Mar 2012 03:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.102.67 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:51:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti28BXavSFgrNXHMr7XUEc6oQD-bBGbTkP0KcLoyQzjN24A@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re; ZFS Performance FreeBSD 9.0 vs. Openindiana
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:51:19 -0000

Knowing of no better... I find Iozone quite nice.

However... I would first resolve these differences in
the test methodology before trying to compare
anything 74 revisions apart... and perhaps the
address width as well.

Version $Revision: 3.323 $
Compiled for 32 bit mode.
Build: Solaris10cc-64
     File size set to 4194304 KB

Version $Revision: 3.397 $
Compiled for 64 bit mode.
Build: freebsd
     File size set to 4194304 KB

Then try to see where the average 45% speedup is occuring.

> to run not only in cache
>  Processor cache size set to 1024 Kbytes.

128k could very well fit in a cache somewhere.
Such as say, the one above.

As shown on the iozone site, I'd try graphing the full range
of record sizes as a first baseline comparison.

And poke around the sysctls to see how the zfs parameters
match up.

> -c Include  close() in the timing calculations. This is useful only
>     if you suspect that close() is broken in  the  operating  system
>     currently  under test.

Really, you do?