From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun 28 11:37:15 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC7F1065676
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:37:15 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from andrew@modulus.org)
Received: from email.octopus.com.au (email.octopus.com.au [122.100.2.232])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF838FC2E
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:37:14 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from andrew@modulus.org)
Received: by email.octopus.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1002)
	id EE167172FB; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:37:37 +1000 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on email.octopus.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DNS_FROM_DOB,
	RCVD_IN_DOB autolearn=no version=3.2.3
Received: from [10.20.30.102] (60.218.233.220.static.exetel.com.au
	[220.233.218.60])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: admin@email.octopus.com.au)
	by email.octopus.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD78817255;
	Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:37:33 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <4A475511.5000700@modulus.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:33:37 +1000
From: Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070926)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Naumov <dan.naumov@gmail.com>
References: <cf9b1ee00906261636m5d09966ag6d7e1b7557ada709@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4A4725FA.80505@modulus.org>	
	<cf9b1ee00906280330s1f500266xdcbfb1462deda7f8@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4A4747A0.6040902@modulus.org>
	<cf9b1ee00906280402g40dcd4b2p81dbf18612495d02@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf9b1ee00906280402g40dcd4b2p81dbf18612495d02@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: read/write benchmarking: UFS2 vs ZFS vs EXT3 vs ZFS RAIDZ vs
 Linux MDRAID
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: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:37:15 -0000


OK, I thought we were taling about a single-threaded sequential write 
which was what my benchmark is. It sounds like the graphs you published 
were of a multi-threaded writers - how many processes were running in 
parallel in the case of the "Contiguous Write Performance"  here?

http://virtual.tehinterweb.net/livejournal/2009-06-22_zfs_diskperf/zfs-diskperf-contig-write.png


- Andrew