From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 30 12:19:37 2012 Return-Path: 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 3E6D3C14 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:19:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CF88FC14 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TePZJ-0003sK-AS for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:19:45 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:19:45 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:19:45 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Performance Difference on UFS and ZFS Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:19:24 +0100 Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig876DB8D731C7B33EFE4A5AAF" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120812 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 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: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:19:37 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig876DB8D731C7B33EFE4A5AAF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 28/11/2012 16:54, Metin D=C3=B6=C5=9Fl=C3=BC wrote: > Hi Sergey, >=20 > I tested it on a cc1.4xlarge EC2 instance, here is the specs: >=20 > 23 GiB of memory > 33.5 EC2 Compute Units (2 x Intel Xeon X5570, quad-core =E2=80=9CNehale= m=E2=80=9D architecture) > 1690 GB of instance storage > 64-bit platform >=20 > I installed PostgreSQL from its port on FreeBSD. I didn't do any > tuning for PostgreSQL or FreeBSD. Data access pattern consists of > completely from sequential reads such "select count(*) from > table_name". I measured performance with PostgreSQL's timing option. > As as side note; all queries are served from memory, so there were no > disk usage for these tests. As others said - this is interesting and unexpected. Are you sure everything is the same across benchmarks? Since you are running on a virtualized platform, it may be that other users of the same storage pool "steal" your IO performance. I did a benchmark with PostgreSQL and ZFS vs UFS a couple of years ago, and the conclusion was that, once tuned, the performance is very similar, with ZFS being slightly better. Since you are testing read-only sequential IO, can you run an alternative test with some other benchmark such as bonnie++? --------------enig876DB8D731C7B33EFE4A5AAF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC4pE0ACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSx+qgCgpZww46FBjLWYL73V9e4sWqLT 72kAoJbjsHMDfoIoPVGD33huToD6HEjn =sgwp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig876DB8D731C7B33EFE4A5AAF--