Latest interface: 0.3.1
Latest system: 010
stefan
User

30 posts

Posted on 24 February 2011 @ 01:50
Hi folks,

here my first Completed benchmarks: (how could paste the pictures ?)

Configuration:

- Gigabyte 870UDA + AMD 240e
- 5x Samsung 204UI 2TB
- 8 GB RAM
- SATA onboard
- SATA-Systemdisk interim 2,5", because USB-Stick bug

Output of last completed benchmark:

ZFSGURU-benchmark, version 1
Test size: 8.000 gigabytes (GiB)
Test rounds: 2
Cooldown period: 2 seconds
Sector size override: 4096 bytes
Number of disks: 5 disks
disk 1: gpt/ada0.nop
disk 2: gpt/ada1.nop
disk 3: gpt/ada2.nop
disk 4: gpt/ada3.nop
disk 5: gpt/ada4.nop


  • Test Settings: TS8; TR2; SECT4096;

  • Tuning: KMEM=12g; AMIN=4g; AMAX=6g;

  • Stopping background processes: sendmail, moused, syslogd and cron

  • Stopping Samba service


  • Now testing RAID0 configuration with 4 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 359 MiB/sec 380 MiB/sec = 369 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 435 MiB/sec 440 MiB/sec = 438 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID0 configuration with 5 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 487 MiB/sec 482 MiB/sec = 484 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 510 MiB/sec 516 MiB/sec = 513 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAIDZ configuration with 4 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 287 MiB/sec 284 MiB/sec = 285 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 174 MiB/sec 141 MiB/sec = 157 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAIDZ configuration with 5 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 391 MiB/sec 393 MiB/sec = 392 MiB/sec avg !!!
    WRITE: 379 MiB/sec 381 MiB/sec = 380 MiB/sec avg !!!

    Now testing RAIDZ2 configuration with 4 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 209 MiB/sec 210 MiB/sec = 209 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 71 MiB/sec 70 MiB/sec = 70 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAIDZ2 configuration with 5 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 310 MiB/sec 308 MiB/sec = 309 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 291 MiB/sec 292 MiB/sec = 292 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID1 configuration with 4 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 280 MiB/sec 307 MiB/sec = 293 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 119 MiB/sec 116 MiB/sec = 118 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID1 configuration with 5 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 406 MiB/sec 355 MiB/sec = 380 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 127 MiB/sec 117 MiB/sec = 122 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID1+0 configuration with 4 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 298 MiB/sec 306 MiB/sec = 302 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 248 MiB/sec 247 MiB/sec = 247 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID0 configuration with 1 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 131 MiB/sec 131 MiB/sec = 131 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 159 MiB/sec 158 MiB/sec = 159 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID0 configuration with 2 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 230 MiB/sec 233 MiB/sec = 231 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 295 MiB/sec 294 MiB/sec = 294 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID0 configuration with 3 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 336 MiB/sec 335 MiB/sec = 336 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 397 MiB/sec 399 MiB/sec = 398 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAIDZ configuration with 2 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 107 MiB/sec 106 MiB/sec = 106 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 147 MiB/sec 148 MiB/sec = 147 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAIDZ configuration with 3 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 207 MiB/sec 202 MiB/sec = 205 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 264 MiB/sec 262 MiB/sec = 263 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAIDZ2 configuration with 3 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 119 MiB/sec 119 MiB/sec = 119 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 117 MiB/sec 118 MiB/sec = 118 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID1 configuration with 2 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 194 MiB/sec 194 MiB/sec = 194 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 149 MiB/sec 149 MiB/sec = 149 MiB/sec avg

    Now testing RAID1 configuration with 3 disks: cWmRd@cWmRd@
    READ: 251 MiB/sec 249 MiB/sec = 250 MiB/sec avg
    WRITE: 120 MiB/sec 143 MiB/sec = 132 MiB/sec avg

    Done


    What Do you think about this output - I'm happy about without special tuning ?
    Should i run my target RaidZ Pool with 4k sector size ?

    Now I have to check the network performance - which tool is helpful with an ubuntu client ?

    Are the other tuning hints ?

    Is it right, that the local disk of the client limits the network performance, for example
    also extran disk with USB 2.0 ..... ?

    thx for answers stefan (greetings from germany)
    Jason
    Developer

    806 posts

    Posted on 24 February 2011 @ 20:27
    You can do images in [img] [/img] tags. :)

    Note that you should raise the test size for more accurate (sustained) results. But looks good!

    If you do RAID-Z with 5 drives then performance without sectorsize override should be good as well, test and see how it performs. If it doesn't change much, you may consider using default pool settings, so it remains bootable (can perform Root-on-ZFS installation to it).
    danswartz
    User

    252 posts

    Posted on 5 March 2011 @ 05:35
    AMD 2-cpu dual-core 2.2ghz. 8GB RAM. Two 7200RPM WD 640GB drives. About 100MB/sec read and write in all cases except mirror, where read was about 160MB/sec. Forgive my ignorance, but how do the img tags work? I had a screenshot in the clipboard, but pasting doesn't work - what do I do?
    Jason
    Developer

    806 posts

    Posted on 5 March 2011 @ 15:13
    Image tags should work the same as on other forums:

    [img]http://path.to/image.png[/img]
    danswartz
    User

    252 posts

    Posted on 5 March 2011 @ 15:47
    Hadn't used them there either :( So I would have to upload them to some site? Okay, noted for future reference, thanks!
    danswartz
    User

    252 posts

    Posted on 19 March 2011 @ 02:52
    Just built a new pool. 5 7200 RPM WD Blue 640GB. Non-destructive benchmark shows 320MB/sec read, 277MB/sec write.
    Jason
    Developer

    806 posts

    Posted on 19 March 2011 @ 02:58
    Looks very good to me. 640GB often means the platters are 320GB; this is one step down from 500GB and another from 666GB platters

    So you could see the HDD generations as platter generations:

    160GB - 250GB - 320GB - (400GB) - 500GB - 666GB - 750GB

    The max currently is 750GB platters, but 666GB platters is more common. You could say half the platter density, half the speed. But that's not always correct, other factors like spindle speed and firmware are important too.

    Either way, i think 277MB/s write is a good score for these somewhat older but still fine disks!
    danswartz
    User

    252 posts

    Posted on 19 March 2011 @ 04:09
    Win7 is backing up right now. Here is the zpool iostat info:

    capacity operations bandwidth
    pool used avail read write read write
    -------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
    tank 120G 2.79T 1 3.35K 17.1K 26.7M
    raidz1 120G 2.79T 1 3.35K 17.1K 26.7M
    gpt/disk3 - - 0 67 8.74K 6.68M
    gpt/disk4 - - 0 67 8.73K 6.68M
    gpt/disk1 - - 0 67 8.44K 6.68M
    gpt/disk2 - - 0 67 8.17K 6.68M
    gpt/disk10 - - 0 67 7.65K 6.68M
    -------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
    danswartz
    User

    252 posts

    Posted on 19 March 2011 @ 04:10
    FYI, I originally had two drives mirrored, but with three win7 boxes backing up, plus a centos server and a ubuntu server, not enough. I got 3 more drives from newegg, recertified. $45 each. newegg gives me a 6-month warranty, so if anything dies soon, I'm still up until I get get an RMA.
    Last Page

    Valid XHTML 1.1