Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:11:16 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-15?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA performance on 8.1 Message-ID: <20100729221116.GA36103@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86iq40lzz4.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20100727094151.GA68226@freebsd.org> <86iq40lzz4.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed Jul 28 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> writes: > > i just stumpled upon this article over at phoronix which benchmarks > > ZFS ATA vs. ZFS CAM ATA on freebsd 8.1 [1]. it seems read performance > > is really low when CAM ATA is enabled. i remember phoronix being > > famous for posting stupid benchmarks (RELASE vs. HEAD and > > such). however their benchmark results in this example seem to be > > valid. > > I didn't look too closely at the details, but I don't understand why > they include gzip and lzma compression in a filesystem performance test. > > BTW, the 8 + head tinderbox runs ZFS on an 64 GB SSD. When I tested > ahci last October, I saw a 7% loss of performance with four paralell > builds. I haven't tried a newer kernel. i'd like to do a benchmark UFS2+SU+SUJ ATA vs UFS2+SU+SUJ CAM ATA myself. any recommendations which benchmarks/* port to use? cheers. alex > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100729221116.GA36103>