Now the test for the Vertex 2 Pro. This was fun. For more explanation please see the thread "Crucial RealSSD C300 and cache flush?" This time I made sure the device is attached via 3GBit SATA. This is also only a short test. I''ll retest after some weeks of usage. cache enabled, 32 buffers, 64k blocks linear write, random data: 96 MB/s linear read, random data: 206 MB/s linear write, zero data: 234 MB/s linear read, zero data: 255 MB/s random write, random data: 84 MB/s random read, random data: 180 MB/s random write, zero data: 224 MB/s randow read, zero data: 190 MB/s cache enabled, 32 buffers, 4k blocks linear write, random data: 93 MB/s linear read, random data: 138 MB/s linear write, zero data: 113 MB/s linear read, zero data: 141 MB/s random write, random data: 41 MB/s (10300 ops/s) random read, random data: 76 MB/s (19000 ops/s) random write, zero data: 54 MB/s (13800 ops/s) random read, zero data: 91 MB/s (22800 ops/s) cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks linear write, random data: 62 MB/s (15700 ops/s) linear read, random data: 32 MB/s (8000 ops/s) linear write, zero data: 64 MB/s (16100 ops/s) linear read, zero data: 45 MB/s (11300 ops/s) random write, random data: 14 MB/s (3400 ops/s) random read, random data: 22 MB/s (5600 ops/s) random write, zero data: 19 MB/s (4500 ops/s) random read, zero data: 21 MB/s (5100 ops/s) cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks, with cache flushes: linear write, random data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, random data, flush after every 4th write: 8500 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every 4th write: 8500 ops/s Some remarks: The random op numbers have to be read with care: - reading occurs in the same order as the writing before - the ops are not aligned to any specific boundary The device also passed the write-loss-test: after 5 repeats no data has been lost. It doesn''t make any difference if the cache is enabled or disabled, so it might be worth to tune zfs to not issue cache flushes. Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I''ll order them today ;) --Arne
> > > Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I''ll order > them today ;) > >I have one and i love it...I sliced it though, used 9 gb for ZIL and the rest for L2ARC (my server is on a smallish network with about 10 clients) It made a huge difference in NFS performance and other stuff as well (for instance, doing something like du will run a TON faster than before) For the money, it''s a GREAT deal. I am very impressed> --Arne > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100625/21083f47/attachment.html>
Przemyslaw Ceglowski
2010-Jun-25 14:28 UTC
[zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers
On 25 Jun 2010, at 15:23, Thomas Burgess <wonslung at gmail.com<mailto:wonslung at gmail.com>> wrote: Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I''ll order them today ;) I have one and i love it...I sliced it though, used 9 gb for ZIL and the rest for L2ARC (my server is on a smallish network with about 10 clients) It made a huge difference in NFS performance and other stuff as well (for instance, doing something like du will run a TON faster than before) For the money, it''s a GREAT deal. I am very impressed --Arne _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list <mailto:zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org>zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org<mailto:zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org> <http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss>http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss <ATT00001..c> Would be great if someone could test the SLC EX version of this drive. ---Przem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100625/801e6f8e/attachment.html>
>From: Arne Jansen >Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:21 AM > >Now the test for the Vertex 2 Pro. This was fun. >For more explanation please see the thread "Crucial RealSSD C300 and cache >flush?" >This time I made sure the device is attached via 3GBit SATA. This is alsoonly a>short test. I''ll retest after some weeks of usage. > >cache enabled, 32 buffers, 64k blocks >linear write, random data: 96 MB/s >linear read, random data: 206 MB/s >linear write, zero data: 234 MB/s >linear read, zero data: 255 MB/s >random write, random data: 84 MB/s >random read, random data: 180 MB/s >random write, zero data: 224 MB/s >randow read, zero data: 190 MB/s > >cache enabled, 32 buffers, 4k blocks >linear write, random data: 93 MB/s >linear read, random data: 138 MB/s >linear write, zero data: 113 MB/s >linear read, zero data: 141 MB/s >random write, random data: 41 MB/s (10300 ops/s) random read, random data: >76 MB/s (19000 ops/s) random write, zero data: 54 MB/s (13800 ops/s) random >read, zero data: 91 MB/s (22800 ops/s) > > >cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks >linear write, random data: 62 MB/s (15700 ops/s) linear read, random data:32>MB/s (8000 ops/s) linear write, zero data: 64 MB/s (16100 ops/s) linearread, zero>data: 45 MB/s (11300 ops/s) random write, random data: 14 MB/s (3400 ops/s) >random read, random data: 22 MB/s (5600 ops/s) random write, zero data: 19 >MB/s (4500 ops/s) random read, zero data: 21 MB/s (5100 ops/s) > >cache enabled, 1 buffer, 4k blocks, with cache flushes: >linear write, random data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linearwrite, zero>data, flush after every write: 5700 ops/s linear write, random data, flushafter>every 4th write: 8500 ops/s linear write, zero data, flush after every 4thwrite:>8500 ops/s > > >Some remarks: > >The random op numbers have to be read with care: > - reading occurs in the same order as the writing before > - the ops are not aligned to any specific boundary > >The device also passed the write-loss-test: after 5 repeats no data hasbeen lost.> >It doesn''t make any difference if the cache is enabled or disabled, so itmight be>worth to tune zfs to not issue cache flushes. > >Conclusion: This device will make an excellent slog device. I''ll order themtoday ;)> >--ArneArne, thanks for doing these tests, they are great to see. Is this the one (http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/2-5--sata-ii/maxim um-performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-pro-series-sata-ii -2-5--ssd-.html) with the built in supercap? Geoff
Geoff Nordli wrote:> > Is this the one > (http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/2-5--sata-ii/maxim > um-performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-pro-series-sata-ii > -2-5--ssd-.html) with the built in supercap? >Yes.> Geoff
On Jun 26, 2010, at 02:09, Arne Jansen wrote:> Geoff Nordli wrote: >> Is this the one >> (http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/2-5--sata-ii/maxim >> um-performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-pro- >> series-sata-ii >> -2-5--ssd-.html) with the built in supercap? > > Yes.Crickey. Who''s the genius who thinks of these URLs?
On 6/26/10 9:47 AM -0400 David Magda wrote:> Crickey. Who''s the genius who thinks of these URLs?SEOs
Any duration limit on the supercap? How long can it sustain the data? Thanks. Fred -----Original Message----- From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Magda Sent: ???, ?? 26, 2010 21:48 To: Arne Jansen Cc: ''OpenSolaris ZFS discuss'' Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers On Jun 26, 2010, at 02:09, Arne Jansen wrote:> Geoff Nordli wrote: >> Is this the one >> (http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/2-5--sata-ii/maxim >> um-performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-pro- >> series-sata-ii >> -2-5--ssd-.html) with the built in supercap? > > Yes.Crickey. Who''s the genius who thinks of these URLs? _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Fred Liu wrote:> Any duration limit on the supercap? How long can it sustain the data?A supercap on a SSD drive only needs to sustain the data until it has been saved (perhaps 10 milliseconds). It is different than a RAID array battery. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
See. Thanks. Does it have the hardware functionality to detect the power outage and do force cache flush when the cache is enabled? Any more detailed info about the capacity (farad) of this supercap and how long one discharge will be? Thanks. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us] Sent: ???, ?? 01, 2010 10:01 To: Fred Liu Cc: ''OpenSolaris ZFS discuss'' Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Fred Liu wrote:> Any duration limit on the supercap? How long can it sustain the data?A supercap on a SSD drive only needs to sustain the data until it has been saved (perhaps 10 milliseconds). It is different than a RAID array battery. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
On 6/30/2010 7:17 PM, Fred Liu wrote:> See. Thanks. > Does it have the hardware functionality to detect the power outage and do force cache flush when the cache is enabled? > Any more detailed info about the capacity (farad) of this supercap and how long one discharge will be? > > Thanks. > > Fred > >I don''t think it matters the actual size of the supercap. As Bob said, it only needs to be sized to be big enough to allow all on-board DRAM to be flushed out to Flash. How big that should be is easily determined by the manufacturer, and they''d be grossly negligent if it wasn''t at least that size. Any capacity beyond that needed to do a single full flush is excess, so I would hazard a guess that the supercap is "just big enough, and no more". That is, just enough to power the SSD for the partial second or so it takes to flush to flash. I don''t think we need to worry how big that actually is. Answering your second question first - my reading of the info is that it will force a cache flush (if the cache is enabled) upon loss of power under any circumstance. That is, it will flush the cache in both a controlled power-down (regardless of whether the OS says to do so) and in an immediate power loss. All this is in the SSD''s firmware. -Erik> -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us] > Sent: ???, ?? 01, 2010 10:01 > To: Fred Liu > Cc: ''OpenSolaris ZFS discuss'' > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Fred Liu wrote: > > >> Any duration limit on the supercap? How long can it sustain the data? >> > A supercap on a SSD drive only needs to sustain the data until it has > been saved (perhaps 10 milliseconds). It is different than a RAID > array battery. > > Bob >-- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Trimble [mailto:erik.trimble at oracle.com] > Sent: ???, ?? 01, 2010 11:45 > To: Fred Liu > Cc: Bob Friesenhahn; ''OpenSolaris ZFS discuss'' > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers > > On 6/30/2010 7:17 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > > See. Thanks. > > Does it have the hardware functionality to detect the power outage > and do force cache flush when the cache is enabled? > > Any more detailed info about the capacity (farad) of this supercap > and how long one discharge will be? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Fred > > > > > > I don''t think it matters the actual size of the supercap. As Bob said, > it only needs to be sized to be big enough to allow all on-board DRAM > to > be flushed out to Flash. How big that should be is easily determined by > the manufacturer, and they''d be grossly negligent if it wasn''t at least > that size. Any capacity beyond that needed to do a single full flush is > excess, so I would hazard a guess that the supercap is "just big enough, > and no more". That is, just enough to power the SSD for the partial > second or so it takes to flush to flash. I don''t think we need to worry > how big that actually is.Understand and agree. It is sort of picky to ask this without manufacturer''s help ;-)> > Answering your second question first - my reading of the info is that > it > will force a cache flush (if the cache is enabled) upon loss of power > under any circumstance. That is, it will flush the cache in both a > controlled power-down (regardless of whether the OS says to do so) and > in an immediate power loss. All this is in the SSD''s firmware.That is exactly what I expect. Little bit broadly speaking, it is sort of ambiguous in aspect of cache flush in all the HDDs. Is it OS-controlled or firmware-controlled or both? At least in this case, I have got what I expect. But what about for all(generic) the HDDs? Thanks. Fred> > -Erik > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us] > > Sent: ???, ?? 01, 2010 10:01 > > To: Fred Liu > > Cc: ''OpenSolaris ZFS discuss'' > > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers > > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Fred Liu wrote: > > > > > >> Any duration limit on the supercap? How long can it sustain the data? > >> > > A supercap on a SSD drive only needs to sustain the data until it has > > been saved (perhaps 10 milliseconds). It is different than a RAID > > array battery. > > > > Bob > > > > > -- > Erik Trimble > Java System Support > Mailstop: usca22-123 > Phone: x17195 > Santa Clara, CA > Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) >
(I am aware I am replying to an old post...) Arne Jansen <sensille <at> gmx.net> writes:> > Now the test for the Vertex 2 Pro. This was fun. > For more explanation please see the thread "Crucial RealSSD C300 and cache > flush?" > This time I made sure the device is attached via 3GBit SATA. This is also > only a short test. I''ll retest after some weeks of usage. > > cache enabled, 32 buffers, 64k blocks > linear write, random data: 96 MB/s > linear read, random data: 206 MB/s > linear write, zero data: 234 MB/s > linear read, zero data: 255 MB/sThis discrepancy between tests with random data and zero data is puzzling to me. Does this suggest that the SSD does transparent compression between its Sandforce SF-1500 controller and the NAND flash chips?> cache enabled, 32 buffers, 4k blocks > random write, random data: 41 MB/s (10300 ops/s) > random read, random data: 76 MB/s (19000 ops/s) > random write, zero data: 54 MB/s (13800 ops/s) > random read, zero data: 91 MB/s (22800 ops/s)These IOPS numbers are significantly below the 50000 IOPS announced by OCZ. But I supposed this is due to your benchmark tool not aligning the ops to 4K boundaries, correct? -mrb
Marc Bevand <m.bevand <at> gmail.com> writes:> > This discrepancy between tests with random data and zero data is puzzling > to me. Does this suggest that the SSD does transparent compression between > its Sandforce SF-1500 controller and the NAND flash chips?Replying to myself: yes, SF-1500 does transparent deduplication and compression to reduce write-amplification. Wow. http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/05/03/sandforce-ssds-break-tpc-c-records/ -mrb