From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 14:14:06 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FBA106564A for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:14:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=1336820bf7=killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188A98FC17 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:14:05 +0000 (UTC) X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:03:32 +0000 X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:03:32 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=6.0 tests=USER_IN_WHITELIST shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 Received: from r2d2 ([188.220.16.49]) by mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon PRO v10.0.4) with ESMTP id md50017222112.msg for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:03:31 +0000 X-MDRemoteIP: 188.220.16.49 X-Return-Path: prvs=1336820bf7=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <25E425F57A7348808EA5E89670F8F337@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Tom Evans" , "Randy Schultz" References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com><4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com><4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de><20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan><4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de><4EF1121F.9010209@zedat.fu-berlin.de><4EF11B57.7090007@phoronix.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:04:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Matthew Tippett Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:14:06 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Evans" > I think that a good SA will at least consider how drives are arranged. > We don't just slap ZFS on a single disk and expect magic to happen, we > consider how write heavy a system will be and consider a dedicated > ZIL, we consider what proportion of files will be re-read and how much > application memory will be required and adjust ARC and L2ARC > accordingly. Tuning and foresight are important. With the additional features and easy of management when using ZFS vs. UFS I know which one we choose even on single disk machines with no L2ARC. Its all very well people saying but if you tune this or tune that it would be much better, but where is the information on how to do this in various scenarios? If we want people to do that the information needs to be easily available and currently that's not the case, if an admin have a network related issue they will search for the solution and apply the fix, for db's the same but that's very time consuming and very error prone. The idea of some default profiles which take into account the amount of memory on the machine + user answered questions as to the roll to create a sensible install default is a great idea. Regards Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.