Interesting... http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eval.pdf http://scalability.org/?p=202 Rayson
Rayson Ho wrote:> Interesting... > > http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eval.pdf > >I wonder where they got the information that "Solaris 10 doesn''t support dual-core Intel" from? Ian.
On 11/2/07 3:04, "Ian Collins" <ian at ianshome.com> wrote:> Rayson Ho wrote: > >> Interesting... >> >> http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eval.pdf >> >> > I wonder where they got the information that "Solaris 10 doesn''t support > dual-core Intel" from?Does OpenSolaris or Solaris 10 support the Intel Core Duo chips and/or the Core 2 Duo chips? Cheers, Chris
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM
2007-Feb-11 18:25 UTC
[zfs-discuss] RACF: SunFire x4500 Thumper Evaluation
>On 11/2/07 3:04, "Ian Collins" <ian at ianshome.com> wrote: > >> Rayson Ho wrote: >> >>> Interesting... >>> >>> http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eval.pdf >>> >>> >> I wonder where they got the information that "Solaris 10 doesn''t support >> dual-core Intel" from? > >Does OpenSolaris or Solaris 10 support the Intel Core Duo chips and/or the >Core 2 Duo chips?Yes. (They''re recognized as two CPUs) Casper
Chris Ridd wrote:> On 11/2/07 3:04, "Ian Collins" <ian at ianshome.com> wrote: > >> Rayson Ho wrote: >> >>> Interesting... >>> >>> http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eval.pdf >>> >>> >> I wonder where they got the information that "Solaris 10 doesn''t support >> dual-core Intel" from? > > Does OpenSolaris or Solaris 10 support the Intel Core Duo chips and/or the > Core 2 Duo chips? >Yup: $ uname -a SunOS acer 5.11 snv_57 i86pc i386 i86pc $ prtdiag System Configuration: Acer TravelMate 4230 BIOS Configuration: Acer V3.01 10/25/2006 ==== Processor Sockets =================================== Version Location Tag -------------------------------- -------------------------- Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T5 U1
To squash this before it gets out of hand, there was some confusion about the configuration of the server used in the test. I had mistakenly told the tester that the system was a dual CPU dual core system (i.e., a total of 4 cores). It was not until quite some time later (after the tests were run) that I opened the box and discovered that the system was a 2 core single CPU system. Shigeki Misawa> I wonder where they got the information that "Solaris 10 doesn''t support > dual-core Intel" from? > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
Ian Collins wrote:> Rayson Ho wrote: > >> Interesting... >> >> http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eval.pdf >> >> > I wonder where they got the information that "Solaris 10 doesn''t support > dual-core Intel" from?probably from evaluating Solaris 8 or something.
Has someone e-mailed the author to recommend upgrading to S10U3? I''m shocked the eval was favorable with S10U2 given S10U3''s substantial performance improvements... - Luke> > Rayson Ho wrote: > > > >> Interesting... > >> > >> > http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eva > >> l.pdf
The Thumper was an eval unit on loan. Unfortunately time ran out so we are unable to do additional tests. (It''s now sitting in a crate waiting to be picked by the shipping company.) Shigeki Misawa Luke Lonergan wrote:> Has someone e-mailed the author to recommend upgrading to S10U3? I''m > shocked the eval was favorable with S10U2 given S10U3''s substantial > performance improvements... > > - Luke >
Some comments from the author: 1. It was a preliminary scratch report not meant to be exhaustive and complete by any means. A comprehensive report of our findings will be released soon. 2. I claim responsibility for any benchmarks gathered from Thumper and the Linux/FASST/ZFS configuration. Any metrics regarding the "Jackrabbit" SI system was provided by others and simply graphed by myself. 3. We didn''t have the evaluation unit for long. However, I did have time to test Thumper configured with both Solaris 10 u2 and Fedora Core 6 Linux (both ext3 and xfs) running iozone, fileop, nfs, dcache, and gridftp. Comparative results will be in the next report. 4. Why didn''t I upgrade to S10U3? Time mostly. Plus it was not clear, at least to me, that u3 offered much in the way of performance gain in our configuration. U3 seemed more of a feature upgrade -- (http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=777 --> ZFS Command Improvements and Changes, including RAIDZ-2, Hot-Spares, Recursive Snapshots, Promotion of Clones, Compact NFSv4 ACL''s, Destroyed Pools Recovery, Error Clearing, ZFS integration with FMA). Correct me if I''m wrong; i.e., what would we have gained performance-wise using U3 in our configuration? 5. "Solaris doesn''t support dual-core Intel" was an honest mistake. See earlier comments in this thread. 6. I imagine that the Scalable Informatics crew was indeed upset that their "Jackrabbit" did not fare as well in our tests. That''s life. And while they may have some valid points in their rebuttal piece (mostly complaints about our configuration, etc.), well, that''s beyond the scope of this mailing list. 7. Thumper/ZFS fared nicely. I do regret not having the time to have loaded Solaris Express in order to test iSCSI performance. Does anyone have benchmarks in this area to share? -- Robert Petkus RHIC/USATLAS Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Physics Dept. - Bldg. 510A Upton, New York 11973 http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC http://www.acf.bnl.gov Luke Lonergan wrote:> Has someone e-mailed the author to recommend upgrading to S10U3? I''m > shocked the eval was favorable with S10U2 given S10U3''s substantial > performance improvements... > > - Luke > > >>> Rayson Ho wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Interesting... >>>> >>>> >>>> >> http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/RCF/LiaisonMeeting/20070118/Other/thumper-eva >> >>>> l.pdf >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Robert Petkus wrote:> Some comments from the author: > 1. It was a preliminary scratch report not meant to be exhaustive > and complete by any means. A comprehensive report of our findings > will be released soon. > > 2. I claim responsibility for any benchmarks gathered from Thumper > and the Linux/FASST/ZFS configuration. Any metrics regarding the > "Jackrabbit" SI system was provided by others and simply graphed by > myself. > > 3. We didn''t have the evaluation unit for long. However, I did > have time to test Thumper configured with both Solaris 10 u2 and > Fedora Core 6 Linux (both ext3 and xfs) running iozone, fileop, > nfs, dcache, and gridftp. Comparative results will be in the next > report. > > 4. Why didn''t I upgrade to S10U3? Time mostly. Plus it was not > clear, at least to me, that u3 offered much in the way of > performance gain in our configuration. U3 seemed more of a feature > upgrade -- (http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=777 -- > > ZFS Command Improvements and Changes, including RAIDZ-2, Hot- > Spares, Recursive Snapshots, Promotion of Clones, Compact NFSv4 > ACL''s, Destroyed Pools Recovery, Error Clearing, ZFS integration > with FMA). Correct me if I''m wrong; i.e., what would we have > gained performance-wise using U3 in our configuration?RAIDZ-2 would have been a fair comparison to RAID-6 (which was used on the JackRabbit linux config). I''d have to look closer into how iozone does its writes, but the re- write tests could be hurt in s10u2, but fixed in s10u3 by: 6424554 full block re-writes need not read data in http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6424554 The prefetching code was improved in s10u3 via: 6447377 ZFS prefetch is inconsistant http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6447377 Depending on the workload, this bug may have been in play as well: 6440499 zil should avoid txg_wait_synced() and use dmu_sync() to issue parallel IOs when fsyncing (INT snv_43, S10_U3): http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6440499 eric