From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 22 14:59:49 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E6D16A400 for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 14:59:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from solon@pyro.de) Received: from srv23.fsb.echelon.bnd.org (mail.pyro.de [83.137.99.96]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B8913C448 for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 14:59:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from solon@pyro.de) Received: from i577b70f0.versanet.de ([87.123.112.240] helo=FLASH) by srv23.fsb.echelon.bnd.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1HqVq0-0004nR-5a for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 16:59:48 +0200 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:59:43 +0200 From: Solon Luigi Lutz X-Mailer: SecureBat! Lite (v2.12.4) Personal Organization: PyroDesign Berlin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <204195092.20070522165943@pyro.de> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <20070407191517.GN63916@garage.freebsd.pl> <20070407212413.GK8831@cicely12.cicely.de> <20070410003505.GA8189@nowhere> <20070410003837.GB8189@nowhere> <20070410011125.GB38535@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070410013034.GC8189@nowhere> <20070410014233.GD8189@nowhere> <4651BD6F.5050301@unsane.co.uk> <20070522083112.GA5136@hub.freebsd.org> <4652B15D.5060505@unsane.co.uk> <20070522090947.GA3005@garage.freebsd.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re[2]: ZFS committed to the FreeBSD base. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Solon Luigi Lutz List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:59:49 -0000 KVS> Pawel Jakub Dawidek writes: >>> I may reinstall at a later date as this is still very much a box to play >>> with, but I gather there is no great gain from going 64 bit other than >>> not having to play with PAE if you've got lots or RAM. >> >> I expect there is a huge difference in performance between i386 and >> amd64. I'm currently setting up environment to compare ZFS on >> FreeBSD/i386, FreeBSD/amd64 and Solaris. KVS> I've had precious little time to do more testing on our amd64-setup, but KVS> it seems that vm.kmem.size_max is a 32-bit uint, so we can't really use KVS> much RAM for ZFS. These are the figures for the following out-of-the-box 7.0 amd64 smp system: Athlon X2 3800, 1GB Ram, Asus M2N-SLI (modified), 24x 500GB (Samsung Spinpoint), Areca ARC1280 running RAID-6. 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 8000 89555 85.6 188475 63.3 114048 36.9 95865 97.2 460375 64.0 41.2 0.3 Test was done on a 10TB volume. Since the machine is running in semi-production mode, I can't perform any UFS tests anymore. The systems is running stable, and extensive checksumming after 8TB data transfers didn't reveal any errors, neither did a filesystem-stress-test. Checksumming with 'cfv' runs at a sustained data rate of 290MB/s Thanks for the good work!