From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 17 07:34:03 2009 Return-Path: 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 E58E0106566B; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:34:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan.naumov@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f200.google.com (mail-yx0-f200.google.com [209.85.210.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE288FC15; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:34:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan.naumov@gmail.com) Received: by yxe38 with SMTP id 38so122361yxe.3 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YTEyU0acg4mHW+UBhPvAPnugFM9Tsp6+rXVGYv8lGlQ=; b=PNX5dMlAQ5/7/2tZ+ZCCB/iAKgEvu4PoYiSzfkCWG9esUGCU7UbK82pK0x9S7useF3 InDhr0p2d1Hr8KW3weQwo/kN2i7zhF2cPD5OJFu/DvQXOdPoBhoAR5pct8HgzJwowj5x T5YLhaKy0G/+ZG68/JBR8Xbow+lKgrkU827W4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=P9X4OVJ6bsM/VTvfQZbCqeTMlEVdSwwhuXsRguj0kOi9bejq02Z0n7+DcsPKFKxSTO D9W/FJDEPFkRibJ9bhM+X3F57JgXBCStHrq6MlrYtPEgjNkfF2DyuqywYJ6jamuvvX+Z 3HoI5jLLpERt11GI02yY5Nr//sqKrYWSDDEOM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.127.4 with SMTP id z4mr11768967anc.129.1245224042984; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:34:02 +0300 Message-ID: From: Dan Naumov To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: ZFS performance on 7.2-release/amd64 low compared to UFS2 + SoftUpdates X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:34:04 -0000 I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024: on UFS2 + SoftUpdates: -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 1024 56431 94.5 88407 38.9 77357 53.3 64042 98.6 644511 98.6 23603.8 243.3 on ZFS: -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 1024 22591 53.7 45602 35.1 14770 13.2 45007 83.8 94595 28.0 102.2 1.2 atom# cat /boot/loader.conf vm.kmem_size="1024M" vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" vfs.zfs.arc_max="96M" The test isn't completely fair in that the test on UFS2 is done on a partition that resides on the first 16gb of a 2tb disk while the zfs test is done on the enormous 1,9tb zfs pool that comes after that partition (same disk). Can this difference in layout make up for the huge difference in performance or is there something else in play? The system is an Intel Atom 330 dualcore, 2gb ram, Western Digital Green 2tb disk. Also what would be another good way to get good numbers for comparing the performance of UFS2 vs ZFS on the same system. Sincerely, - Dan Naumov