From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 22 13:16:18 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E23C15 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nonesuch@longcount.org) Received: from mail-vb0-x22b.google.com (mail-vb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACC2949 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fs19so2586509vbb.2 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:16:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer :in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:x-gm-message-state; bh=FKyVlTwGZW+q5MFD3NlACGRnQuJC2T5SC0KRuJ7c7Vg=; b=MqVGV8ZR+nz+6tHrati/29rNPJvAU8EgueZQ1XLYP+h5kuI3IU5QrFQTVu17Eg4DOA Sk6nyhdURd0NGAj5LZXMNRh9KwhrZM6LVEiGMTvBgDZXsW72rgY9719/Xv4SUUUIqlNV cqU+YSi9QeKTJod0kOj3uwM9/svrfHHxkjhdhjS8qRFcX9dwYzEromW5M3qtR5d/XTNr qAfSa6AYsRm3/Wgp42y4hjVjW7TYh+jJBlKL3iKnVF3n0jMTBPl1F4vgSeEoppx/FePB eUdG2CXvs7Fhy/GVlGSp0k4z6r6L5gy4XyCJBpU7X9DRu8SLup/qiAL0Og3Hb2m3ShCc F5fw== X-Received: by 10.52.32.230 with SMTP id m6mr1780237vdi.83.1363958177954; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [97.250.185.66] (66.sub-97-250-185.myvzw.com. [97.250.185.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p7sm3013792vdt.2.2013.03.22.06.16.15 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <514C2D36.8090505@contactlab.com> From: Mark Saad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146) In-Reply-To: <514C2D36.8090505@contactlab.com> Message-Id: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:16:13 -0400 To: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+dtpMoClII0Avqa6Bd2WunNigF6D7EhQ9W1TKF9N24bokQd2PZk8xaq/gaAVKx9xNkvWA X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:44:51 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:16:18 -0000 On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:06 AM, Davide D'Amico 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