ZFS, Dell PE2950

[Benjeman Meekhof]

Sure, here is an example iozone output when I tested UFS2.  Same 
hardware config as with ZFS test.

#gstripe label -v -s 128k test /dev/mfid0 /dev/mfid2
#newfs -U -b 65536 /dev/stripe/test


"Throughput report Y-axis is type of test X-axis is number of processes"
"Record size = 512 Kbytes "
"Output is in Kbytes/sec"

"  Initial write "  576953.38   613457.19   627091.58   626818.95 
641763.54   626005.11   579073.92   553088.47   557498.71   556188.95 
553340.92   548801.62

"        Rewrite "  580755.31   621562.75   638209.55   573171.69 
633114.27   616501.92   542520.70   541662.21   525603.64   529194.37 
506230.25   490589.89

"           Read "  505978.28   546837.12   565786.34   310994.23 
309813.64   329930.91   351162.15   376940.64   408561.11   432157.69 
452106.75   470176.39

"        Re-read "  523917.72   581796.50   592393.28   314724.70 
308485.12   327409.40   350913.96   381370.12   408105.25   434168.93 
458742.49   475407.44

-Ben

Ivan Voras wrote:
> Benjeman J. Meekhof wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I posted earlier about some results with this same system using UFS2.
>> Now trying to test ZFS.  This is a Dell PE2950 with two Perc6
>> controllers and 4 md1000 disk shelves with 750GB drives.  16GB RAM, dual
>> quad core Xeon. I recompiled our kernel to use the ULE scheduler instead
>> of default.
>>
>> I could not get through an entire run of iozone without a system
>> reboot/crash.  ZFS is clearly labeled experimental, of course.
>>
>> It seems to die for sure around 10 processes, sometimes less (this is
>> the end of my output from iozone):
>>
>>  Children see throughput for 10 readers          =  135931.72 KB/sec
>>         Parent sees throughput for 10 readers           =  135927.24 KB/sec
>>         Min throughput per process                      =   13351.26 KB/sec
>>         Max throughput per process                      =   14172.05 KB/sec
>>         Avg throughput per process                      =   13593.17 KB/sec
>>         Min xfer                                        = 31586816.00 KB
> 
> Can you tell us how does this compare to UFS2 results you posted
> previously? (since you used dd for UFS2 and now iozone for ZFS; what are
> your conclusions?)
>