On 9/25/07 3:37 AM, "Sergiy Kolodka" <sergiy.kolodka at
centrelink.gov.au>
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I''m playing with Blade 6300 to check performance of compressed ZFS
with Oracle
> database.
> After some really simple tests I noticed that default (well, not really
> default, some patches applied, but definitely noone bother to tweak disk
> subsystem or something else) installation of S10U3 is actually faster than
> S10U4, and a lot faster. Actually it''s even faster on compressed
ZFS with
> S10U3 than on uncompressed with S10U4.
>
> My configuration - default Update 3 LiveUpgraded to Update 4 with ZFS
> filesystem on dedicated disk, and I''m working with same files
which are on
> same physical cylinders, so it''s not likely a problem with HDD
itself.
>
Did you do a ''zpool upgrade -a''?
> I''m doing as simple as just $time dd if=file.dbf of=/dev/null in
few parallel
> tasks. On Update3 it''s somewhere close to 11m32s and on Update 4
it''s around
> 12m6s. And it''s both reading from compressed or uncompressed ZFS,
numbers a
> little bit higher with compressed, couple of seconds more, which impressive
by
> itself, but difference is the same, and strangest part is that reading file
> from compressed ZFS on U3 is faster than reading uncompressed with U4.
>
> I''m really surprised by this results, anyone else noticed that ?
>
I''m running a ''motley group of disks'' on an e450
acting as our jumpstart
server and server build times are noticeably quicker since u4.
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
-Andy
--