Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:45:49 +0000 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt@yahoo.com.hk> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS sub-optimal performance with default setting Message-ID: <CAFHbX1Jrn%2BCE%2BQJFQs8i7Y4x55h2OqO-iJr3wK1bRmNXaEn%2BKQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1357915426.16602.YahooMailClassic@web190801.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> References: <1357915426.16602.YahooMailClassic@web190801.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt@yahoo.com.hk> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > To make it simple, I have setup in this setting: > > Host: Intel dual core 3Ghz CPU, RHEL 6.3 x64, RAM 8GB > > Freebsd 9.1 -i386 VM with these setting: > CPU: One > Memory: 2GB > 5GB for OS (da1) > 5GB for ZFS (da2), no separate ZIL > This is ... tight! I concur with Adam, ZFS may be of little use in this scenario. It is not so much lack of ZIL, but your pool is made up of part of a virtualized shared resource. If you do not have a ZIL, then synch writes are constrained by the speed of your slowest/only disk, and I think you are at its limit. > Installed software: > Postgresql 9.2.2 (compile from ports) /usr/local/pgsql is a ZFS dataset > OTRS 3.1.6 (compile from ports) > Apache 2 install from packages > > zfs/postgresql/otrs/apache is in default setting, except I have turned off atime in ZFS. > > I have run OTRS benchmark twice, below is the result: > Insert Time: 10000 12 s :-( Should not take more than 5's on an average system. > Update Time: 10000 7 s Ok > > Select Time: 10000 3 s :-) Looks fine! > Delete Time: 10000 2 s :-) Looks fine! > > Thanks, > Patrick > Does performance significantly increase if you use UFS instead? Cheers Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFHbX1Jrn%2BCE%2BQJFQs8i7Y4x55h2OqO-iJr3wK1bRmNXaEn%2BKQ>