From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 19 09:28:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44D8143 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:28:24 +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 48CFE2E3 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:28:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=contactlab.it; s=clab1; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@contactlab.it; t=1363685303; h=From:Subject:Date:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=ANrVo+KmA50pxJYx93WZNrctB1nbTgGYRYQfQmmwtLQ=; b=r9gc62B3OlbDEFeNnrH1fFUxlxIv+XVN3ZsXNI8QfCNbaxmBFizzWmhHQcGz++lY cYp5hQbpi7tXzCajj/NvevYKaydFOKHcEu9YgrjNGShStnPUqlYlRT3YszbhRlvR AhrTIfp7NGKQvWZOXhCu8ufvF/MbNgg5z4ZeNaEnvas=; Received: from [213.92.90.12] ([213.92.90.12:42278] 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 AF/1E-24145-7BF28415; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:28:23 +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 1UHsqF-000AIA-3v for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:28:23 +0100 Received: (qmail 39559 invoked by uid 89); 19 Mar 2013 09:28:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO davepro.local) (127.0.0.1) by mx3-master.housing.tomato.lan with SMTP; 19 Mar 2013 09:28:22 -0000 Message-ID: <51482FB5.2000305@contactlab.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:28:21 +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> <514757DD.9030705@contactlab.com> <42B9D942BA134E16AFDDB564858CA007@multiplay.co.uk> <1bfdea0efb95a7e06554dadf703d58e7@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <897DB64CEBAF4F04AE9C76B3F686E497@multiplay.co.uk> <13317bbd289c4c828f134e2c2592a2d7@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <01576f39e05f96ab3b3c822531e0c286@sys.tomatointeractive.it> <0D88348E154D43E58597FF40BA41D22F@multiplay.co.uk> <51482E67.8060900@contactlab.com> <394EAD0E59004D1B8D2010F94DDB7C84@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <394EAD0E59004D1B8D2010F94DDB7C84@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:28:24 -0000 Il 19/03/13 10:26, Steven Hartland ha scritto: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Davide D'Amico" > >>>> [...] >>>>> I'd recommend doing the same test on the SSD with ZFS as well as that >>>>> would >>>>> give you a simple like for like comparison. >>>> >>>> Here we are: >>>> >>>> # zpool create DATAZFS mfid2 >>>> >>>> 1° round: >>>> General statistics: >>>> total time: 90.1662s >>>> total number of events: 1 >>>> total time taken by event execution: 90.1631s >>>> >>>> 2° round: >>>> General statistics: >>>> total time: 82.3333s >>>> total number of events: 1 >>>> total time taken by event execution: 82.3307s >>>> >>>> 3° round: >>>> General statistics: >>>> total time: 81.5421s >>>> total number of events: 1 >>>> total time taken by event execution: 81.5399s >>>> >>>> 4° round: >>>> General statistics: >>>> total time: 82.1657s >>>> total number of events: 1 >>>> total time taken by event execution: 82.1636s >>>> >>>> >>>> # zfs get all DATAZFS >>>> NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE >>>> DATAZFS type filesystem - >>>> DATAZFS creation Tue Mar 19 7:36 2013 - >>>> DATAZFS used 52.0G - >>>> DATAZFS available 64.2G - >>>> DATAZFS referenced 52.0G - >>>> DATAZFS compressratio 1.00x - >>>> DATAZFS mounted yes - >>>> DATAZFS quota none default >>>> DATAZFS reservation none default >>>> DATAZFS recordsize 128K default >>>> DATAZFS mountpoint /DATAZFS default >>>> DATAZFS sharenfs off default >>>> DATAZFS checksum on default >>>> DATAZFS compression off default >>>> DATAZFS atime off local >>>> DATAZFS devices on default >>>> DATAZFS exec on default >>>> DATAZFS setuid on default >>>> DATAZFS readonly off default >>>> DATAZFS jailed off default >>>> DATAZFS snapdir hidden default >>>> DATAZFS aclmode discard default >>>> DATAZFS aclinherit restricted default >>>> DATAZFS canmount on default >>>> DATAZFS xattr off temporary >>>> DATAZFS copies 1 default >>>> DATAZFS version 5 - >>>> DATAZFS utf8only off - >>>> DATAZFS normalization none - >>>> DATAZFS casesensitivity sensitive - >>>> DATAZFS vscan off default >>>> DATAZFS nbmand off default >>>> DATAZFS sharesmb off default >>>> DATAZFS refquota none default >>>> DATAZFS refreservation none default >>>> DATAZFS primarycache all default >>>> DATAZFS secondarycache all default >>>> DATAZFS usedbysnapshots 0 - >>>> DATAZFS usedbydataset 52.0G - >>>> DATAZFS usedbychildren 225K - >>>> DATAZFS usedbyrefreservation 0 - >>>> DATAZFS logbias latency default >>>> DATAZFS dedup off default >>>> DATAZFS mlslabel - >>>> DATAZFS sync standard default >>>> DATAZFS refcompressratio 1.00x - >>>> DATAZFS written 52.0G - >>> >>> That's got the wrong record size for mysql :( >> >> Sorry, my fault (I've made so many tests...). I'll modify it asap, >> copy the mysql/* files again and posting here the results. > > Is this a test I could possibly run here? I have a machine on test for > mysql so if its something you can let me have the data for I can run > some tests locally too. i don't know if you have installed sysbench 0.5.0 somewhere in you server, but we could test using *standard* oltp tests (the dataset I'm using is strictly private) included in sysbench package. Is it possible, for you? I'm using mysql-5.6.10 enterprise (but I think the one you find in the ports tree it's a good choice, too). Thanks, d.