Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:06:46 +0100 From: Davide D'Amico <davide.damico@contactlab.com> To: "Traffanstead, Mike" <mike@thesandbenders.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-ID: <514C2D36.8090505@contactlab.com> In-Reply-To: <CAA%2BPJRFcdX-EEZD6W6NE%2BvUsiBV=VvZLGZvMw9AFkbGUynce3Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <CAA%2BPJRFcdX-EEZD6W6NE%2BvUsiBV=VvZLGZvMw9AFkbGUynce3Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 ZFS /DATAZFS partition): - an UFS partition (/DATA) on hardware raid10; - a ZFS on hardware raid10; - a ZFS mirror on two hardware stripes; The UFS filesystems performed at 400MBps without any tweak while ZFS performed at 400MBps after tweaks. So I don't think that these levels of performaces are related to file system. Thanks, d.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?514C2D36.8090505>