similar to: Filebench Performance is weird

Hi all, i want to replace a bunch of Apple Xserves with Xraids and HFS+ (brr) by Sun x4200 with SAS-Jbods and ZFS. The application will be the Helios UB+ fileserver suite. I installed the latest Solaris 10 on a x4200 with 8gig of ram and two Sun SAS controllers, attached two sas-jbods with 8 SATA-HDDs each und created a zfs pool as a raid 10 by doing something like the following: [i]zpool create

On 29/10/2007, Tek Bahadur Limbu <teklimbu at wlink.com.np> wrote: > I created a ZFS file system like the following with /mypool/cache being > the partition for the Squid cache: > > 18:51:27 root at solaris:~$ zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > mypool 478M 31.0G 10.0M /mypool > mypool/cache 230M 9.78G 230M

HI, The question is a ZFS performance question in reguards to SAN traffic. We are trying to benchmark ZFS vx VxFS file systems and I get the following performance results. Test Setup: Solaris 10: 11/06 Dual port Qlogic HBA with SFCSM (for ZFS) and DMP (of VxFS) Sun Fire v490 server LSI Raid 3994 on backend ZFS Record Size: 128KB (default) VxFS Block Size: 8KB(default) The only thing

Greeting All I have create a pool that consists oh a hard disk and a ssd as a cache zpool create hdd c11t0d0p3 zpool add hdd cache c8t0d0p0 - cache device I ran an OLTP bench mark to emulate a DMBS One I ran the benchmark, the pool started create the database file on the ssd cache device ??????????? can any one explain why this happening ? is not L2ARC is used to absorb the evicted data

Hi there I''m busy with some tests on the above hardware and will post some scores soon. For those that do _not_ have the above available for tests, I''m open to suggestions on potential configs that I could run for you. Pop me a mail if you want something specific _or_ you have suggestions concerning filebench (varmail) config setup. Cheers This message posted from

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > Results: > > > > Netperf, 1 vm: > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 MB/sec). > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x. > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running netperf > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote on 20/08/2014 01:57:10 PM: > > Results: > > > > Netperf, 1 vm: > > The polling patch improved throughput by ~33% (1516 MB/sec -> 2046 MB/sec). > > Number of exits/sec decreased 6x. > > The same improvement was shown when I tested with 3 vms running netperf > > (4086 MB/sec -> 5545

I have setup a distributed glusterfs volume with 3 servers. the network is 1GbE, i get filebench test with a client. refer to this link: https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws001/guided_trek/Performance_in_a_Gluster_Systemv6F.pdf the more server for gluster, more throughput should gain. I have tested the network, the bandwidth is 117 MB/s, so when i have 3 servers i should gain about 300 MB/s (3*117

From: Razya Ladelsky <razya at il.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:47:20 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode When vhost is waiting for buffers from the guest driver (e.g., more packets to send in vhost-net's transmit queue), it normally goes to sleep and waits for the guest to "kick" it. This kick involves a PIO in the guest, and therefore an exit (and possibly

From: Razya Ladelsky <razya at il.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:47:20 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] vhost: Add polling mode When vhost is waiting for buffers from the guest driver (e.g., more packets to send in vhost-net's transmit queue), it normally goes to sleep and waits for the guest to "kick" it. This kick involves a PIO in the guest, and therefore an exit (and possibly

Can anybody tell me how to measure the raw performance of a new system I''m putting together? I''d like to know what it''s capable of in terms of IOPS and raw throughput to the disks. I''ve seen Richard''s raidoptimiser program, but I''ve only seen results for random read iops performance, and I''m particularly interested in write

Hello, I have been experimenting with ZFS on a test box, preparing to present it to management. One thing I cannot test right now is our real-world application load. We write to CIFS shares currently in small files. We write about 250,000 files a day, in various sizes (1KB to 500MB). Some directories get a lot of individual files (sometimes 50,000 or more) in a single directory. We spoke to a Sun

I''m looking at the newly-orderable (via Sun) STEC Zeus SSDs, and they''re outrageously priced. http://www.stec-inc.com/product/zeusssd.php I just looked at the Intel X25-E series, and they look comparable in performance. At about 20% of the cost. http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/extreme/index.htm Can anyone enlighten me as to any possible difference between an STEC

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=897 Summary: scp doesn't clean up forked children when processing multiple files Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.8p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: scp AssignedTo:

I was trying to simply test bandwidth that Solaris/ZFS (Nevada b63) can deliver from a drive, and doing this: dd if=(raw disk) of=/dev/null gives me around 80MB/s, while dd if=(file on ZFS) of=/dev/null gives me only 35MB/s!?. I am getting basically the same result whether it is single zfs drive, mirror or a stripe (I am testing with two Seagate 7200.10 320G drives hanging off the same interface

Now that Solaris 10 11/06 is available, I wanted to post the complete list of ZFS features and bug fixes that were included in that release. I''m also including the necessary patches for anyone wanting to get all the ZFS features and fixes via patches (NOTE: later patch revision may already be available): Solaris 10 Update 3 (11/06) Patches sparc Patches * 118833-36 SunOS 5.10:

Recently, I''m benchmarking all kinds of stuff on my systems. And one question I can''t intelligently answer is what blocksize I should use in these tests. I assume there is something which monitors present disk activity, that I could run on my production servers, to give me some statistics of the block sizes that the users are actually performing on the production server.

Hi, I have btrfs volume, shared via samba. I have a directory of documents that I want to backup on my server. win7 reports a maximum of ~3.10MB/s transfer transferring the same directory on a ext4 samba share I get 25MB/s + Any ideas? Is it like that because of how btrfs works and is setup? Thanks, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body

Suppose I have a storage server that runs ZFS, presumably providing file (NFS) and/or block (iSCSI, FC) services to other machines that are running Solaris. Some of the use will be for LDoms and zones[1], which would create zpools on top of zfs (fs or zvol). I have concerns about variable block sizes and the implications for performance. 1.

Greetings, We''re trying out a new JBOD here. Multipath (mpxio) is not working, and we could use some feedback and/or troubleshooting advice. The OS is oi151a7, running on an existing server with a 54TB pool of internal drives. I believe the server hardware is not relevant to the JBOD issue, although the internal drives do appear to the OS with multipath device names (despite the fact