Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Message-ID: <igev84$8si$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <52B3EE9B-9B4A-4F96-ADE3-83F56135183D@moneybookers.com> References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <52B3EE9B-9B4A-4F96-ADE3-83F56135183D@moneybookers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/01/2011 16:23, Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Hi, > > Having in mind that a SAS enterprise disk normally can handle 150-180IOPS, this benchmark is testing something else ;) It depends - since ZFS is logging all the time it doesn't have to seek as much; if all transactions are WRITE and given sequentially, they will be written to the drive sequentially, even with full fsync semantics. But 75k IOPS is a bit too much :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?igev84$8si$1>