Re: zfs performance
- From: Ian Collins <ian-news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:18:28 +1200
Frank Cusack wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:51:44 +1200 Ian Collins <ian-news@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Apparently not, at least according to recent postings on zfs-discuss.
Frank Cusack wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:34:11 +0100 Michael Pye <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Not really, all that happens in this case is ZFS is unable to enable the
V100, one ide disk, all slices ufs. I altered one slice to use zfs,Most likely, yes.
the slice houses the cache directory for squid proxy
server. Performance was much worse than using ufs which I wasn't
expecting. iostat -xn 1 showed %busy as between 0-40 whilst ufs was
between 0-5.
Is this because the disk is a mixture of ufs and zfs, is zfs not
recommended to be used for a single slice when other slices are ufs on
a single disk ?
drive's write cache.
Which is a significant performance penalty, is it not?
It would only impact ZFS performance relative to ZFS on a whole drive,
not ZFS compared to UFS which also runs with the cache off.
--
Ian Collins.
.
- References:
- zfs performance
- From: Michael Pye
- Re: zfs performance
- From: Frank Cusack
- Re: zfs performance
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: zfs performance
- From: Frank Cusack
- zfs performance
- Prev by Date: Re: zfs performance
- Next by Date: SunPCI card crashes when 'winrar' run on XP
- Previous by thread: Re: zfs performance
- Next by thread: Re: zfs performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|