From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 23 19:54:43 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147101065679;
	Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:54:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from artemb@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-iw0-f185.google.com (mail-iw0-f185.google.com
	[209.85.223.185])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B965A8FC1C;
	Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:54:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iwn15 with SMTP id 15so3426372iwn.7
	for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:54:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to
	:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc
	:content-type; bh=l/UgOlL5BqW5EfdZnrmc22h/cSEVC0e8eWJt+zIg9lo=;
	b=CeDd4CcXRzJdaB49EazEO2GkBspnGIQ01jkCJWWGgpP2dFDebwXweBxMNNQNo9Cd6h
	0ggQrgBe1LXW3HELh8GaVNY4QJpNdpUZDlh7fZvk3jlQu6Dbt4262Jypu7K0FOQlReE3
	aGuvWlOl8vMuBGwNRGK9p/7e8UWEh2Ei1mTmk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	b=rz9XipVb6Udo8D4pHUKBTBr/KVQ2bdsArIqq5VBlIBV4rfZQ8tQTDIDJJQh/TC4hWZ
	N3hbDwwwOHtkKuM3DlW0T8Xi4eV4UZ4u7DbqP6JHrymEdiAiJNG3IppCRzGSPUkiIFSt
	7c+ISf8rV6uajt61l4xCV/tEzFd8z1Av6QTzc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: artemb@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.162.9 with SMTP id t9mr374099ibx.5.1266954872207; Tue, 23 
	Feb 2010 11:54:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <hm19h4$8ah$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <hm19h4$8ah$1@dough.gmane.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:54:32 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: b5286967488d1d03
Message-ID: <ed91d4a81002231154j25b92150tdc3d882bd8814139@mail.gmail.com>
From: Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Some ZFS+NFS benchmarks (OpenSolaris)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:54:43 -0000

OCZ Vertex Turbo SSD that they used may not be the best choice for Zil.

It's not too bad, but according to benchmarks, it does lag behind
Intel's X25-M in IOPS:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-x25-m-vertex,2399-13.html

If we believe the benchmarks, OCZ's SSD could provide ~900 IOPS during
fileserver benchmark. I assume that it would be in the ballpark of the
iozone tests in the paper. The number seems to correlate fairly well
with the paper's probes/sec graps on pages 12 and 13.

My bet would be that if they used Intel's SSDs (X25-M or, even better,
X25-E), they would probably see noticeable write performance bump.

--Artem



On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~delaat/sne-2009-2010/p02/report.pdf
>
> It's curious how ZIL on SSD doesn't help them with NFS when they increase
> the load.
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>