Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:16:13 -0400 From: Mark Saad <nonesuch@longcount.org> To: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-ID: <FA0CCB69-CDC6-4069-849E-9333218FECF6@longcount.org> In-Reply-To: <514C2D36.8090505@contactlab.com> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <CAA%2BPJRFcdX-EEZD6W6NE%2BvUsiBV=VvZLGZvMw9AFkbGUynce3Q@mail.gmail.com> <514C2D36.8090505@contactlab.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:06 AM, Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> w= rote: > Il 22/03/13 11:00, Traffanstead, Mike ha scritto: >> May I ask why you're running ZFS on top of a RAID array? That's not >> recommended. One of the advantages of ZFS is that it balance disk >> activity across devices but when put it on top drives that at are >> already raided it loses that insight and may end up scheduling >> reads/writes that all land on the same device. The only case where >> it's okay to do this is if you mirroring individual disks (e.g. >> several RAID-1 devices) and even that's arguable. > Hi, > we tried different approaches to a /DATA partition (before trying using a Z= FS /DATAZFS partition): >=20 > - an UFS partition (/DATA) on hardware raid10; What are details of the ufs setup? Version, softupdate , softupdate journaled, gjournal . What mount options ? > - a ZFS on hardware raid10; > - a ZFS mirror on two hardware stripes; >=20 > The UFS filesystems performed at 400MBps without any tweak while ZFS perfo= rmed at 400MBps after tweaks. >=20 > So I don't think that these levels of performaces are related to file syst= em. >=20 > Thanks, > d. >=20 > _____________________________________________ What can you tell us about the raid card. And disks ? --- Mark saad | mark.saad@longcount.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FA0CCB69-CDC6-4069-849E-9333218FECF6>