Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:34:16 +0300 From: Alexey Tarasov <me@lexasoft.ru> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disappointing speed with ZFS Message-ID: <C86A7400-4F8F-4A33-982C-9792CBE7B1A5@lexasoft.ru> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730802110921i6af516b9t855a4065884cc64b@mail.gmail.com> References: <9DA6FFCD-11DB-4580-9314-52B0885351D8@lexasoft.ru> <fopmlp$qeh$1@ger.gmane.org> <0EF3CEE6-6F38-4713-A245-4354D34AFE75@lexasoft.ru> <9bbcef730802110921i6af516b9t855a4065884cc64b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11.02.2008, at 20:21, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 11/02/2008, Alexey Tarasov <me@lexasoft.ru> wrote:
>> I've done similar tests on the other machine, and all looks fine.
>>
>> But why on this machine ZFS works slower than UFS? When I make UFS
>> file system on the same disk, rtorrent hashing works 10 times faster.
>> And while hashing, HDD is used three times intensively with ZFS
>> (noticed by flashing LED).
>>
>> I have an amd64 Core2Duo processor, 4 Gb of RAM, what is not enough
>> for ZFS?
>>
>> What kernel tuning can help me?
>
> Ok, so you're saying that you've done similar testing (meaning
> rtorrent hashing) on other machines, and they work fine, but only this
> one is slow?
No, I mean bonnie++ tests.
>
>
> There's no usual reason why would it be so.
>
> Can you try the suggestion I made (dd+iostat)?
--
Alexey Tarasov
(\__/)
(=3D'.'=3D)
E[: | | | | :]=D0=97
(")_(")
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C86A7400-4F8F-4A33-982C-9792CBE7B1A5>