Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:13 -0400 From: freebsd@top-consulting.net To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS of choice for max random iops ( Maildir ) Message-ID: <20110916073013.37776ih29rdcux8o@mail.top-consulting.net> In-Reply-To: <4E732FDF.9080307@gmail.com> References: <20110916063153.200375qdq59crf8c@mail.top-consulting.net> <4E732FDF.9080307@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Johan Hendriks <joh.hendriks@gmail.com>: > freebsd@top-consulting.net schreef: >> I have a new server that I would like to use as a back-end Maildir >> storage shared through NFS. The specs are: >> >> FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 2 >> Xeon x3470 @ 2.93 quad-core CPU >> 4 GB Ram @ 1333mhz ( upgrading to 12GB tomorrow ) >> 3WARE 9650SE-16LP card with write cache enabled ( battery is installed ) >> 16 x WD RE3 1TB drives >> RAID 10 setup >> >> Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks ) >> separated in two pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest >> available to configure as storage. >> >> I've tried three options for the storage file system but I'm not >> sure which one is the best option since I can't really reproduce >> production conditions. I only ran tests with dd and bonnie and >> here's what I found: >> >> A. TEST1: dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/data/t1 count=1M >> >> 1. ZFS performed the worst, averaging 67MB/sec >> 2. UFS + gjournal did around 130MB/sec >> 3. UFS did around 190MB/sec >> >> B. TEST2 ( random file creation ): bonnie++ -d /data -c 10 -s 0 -n 50 -u 0 >> >> 1. UFS + gjournal performed the worst >> 2. ZFS performed somewhat better >> 3. UFS performed the best again ( about 50% better ) >> >> C. TEST3 ( sequential writing ): bonnie++ -d /data -c 10 -s 8088 -n 0 -u 0 >> >> 1. UFS + gjournal crashed the box >> 2. ZFS performed average >> 3. UFS performed better than ZFS ( about 50% better ) >> >> >> I really like the concepts behind ZFS and UFS + Journaling but the >> performance hit is quite drastic when compared to UFS. >> >> What I'm looking for here is max IOPS when doing random >> read/writes. Is UFS the best choice for this ? Do my results make >> sense ? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Did you use raidz1 2 or 3 or mirror for the ZFS ppol. > I believe that ZFS mirror gives you the best performance, but the > least actual space. > > If you did make a raidz[1,2,3] try it with a mirror pool. > > Also do not use the raid function of your raid controller if you use > ZFS, this way you loose the goodies of zfs. > If you setup ZFS use JBOD on the raid controller. > > > Gr > Johan > > I simply did a : zpool create data da1 and no zfs-level raid. I also created a dataset - tried both with lzjb compression and without - but the results were similar, aka bad. Is zfs supposed to be faster if you let it manage the disks directly ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110916073013.37776ih29rdcux8o>