ZFS performance - Solaris

This is a discussion on ZFS performance - Solaris ; New to ZFS stuff so please bear with me. I have a hardware RAID 5 device that is broken up into 5 LUN of 1 terabyte each. Interface is UltraSCSI 320 OS: Solaris 10x86 11/06 System is a Dell Poweredge ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: ZFS performance

  1. ZFS performance

    New to ZFS stuff so please bear with me.

    I have a hardware RAID 5 device that is broken up into 5 LUN of 1
    terabyte each. Interface is UltraSCSI 320

    OS: Solaris 10x86 11/06
    System is a Dell Poweredge 1950 with dual quadcore Xeons 2.3Ghz
    8Gbytes memory, SCSI HBA is an Adaptec 39320 dual cahnnel HBA.

    Created a a zfs pool like this:

    zpool create home c3t5d0 c3t5d1 c3t5d2 c3t5d3 c3t5d4

    This is then mounted as /home

    I am seeing very slow read/write performance from this filesystem.

    A simple test resulted showed this speed

    # timex dd if=/dev/zero of=/home/bigfile bs=1024k count=1024
    1024+0 records in
    1024+0 records out

    real 11:47.13
    user 0.00
    sys 0.65

    Which equates to roughly 1.4Mbytes/sec

    What have I done wrong?

    Did I need to run fdisk and format on each of the LUNs?

    Totally baffled here.

  2. Re: ZFS performance

    Craig Johnson wrote:
    > New to ZFS stuff so please bear with me.
    >
    > I have a hardware RAID 5 device that is broken up into 5 LUN of 1
    > terabyte each. Interface is UltraSCSI 320
    >
    > OS: Solaris 10x86 11/06
    > System is a Dell Poweredge 1950 with dual quadcore Xeons 2.3Ghz
    > 8Gbytes memory, SCSI HBA is an Adaptec 39320 dual cahnnel HBA.
    >
    > Created a a zfs pool like this:
    >
    > zpool create home c3t5d0 c3t5d1 c3t5d2 c3t5d3 c3t5d4
    >
    > This is then mounted as /home
    >
    > I am seeing very slow read/write performance from this filesystem.


    Is the raid5 stuff done building, before you try to use it?



  3. Re: ZFS performance

    On May 28, 11:10 am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > Craig Johnson wrote:
    > > New to ZFS stuff so please bear with me.

    >
    > > I have a hardware RAID 5 device that is broken up into 5 LUN of 1
    > > terabyte each. Interface is UltraSCSI 320

    >
    > > OS: Solaris 10x86 11/06
    > > System is a Dell Poweredge 1950 with dual quadcore Xeons 2.3Ghz
    > > 8Gbytes memory, SCSI HBA is an Adaptec 39320 dual cahnnel HBA.

    >
    > > Created a a zfs pool like this:

    >
    > > zpool create home c3t5d0 c3t5d1 c3t5d2 c3t5d3 c3t5d4

    >
    > > This is then mounted as /home

    >
    > > I am seeing very slow read/write performance from this filesystem.

    >
    > Is the raid5 stuff done building, before you try to use it?


    Yes, I made sure of that.

  4. Re: ZFS performance

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:51:02 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Craig Johnson writes:
    >> On May 28, 11:10 am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>> Craig Johnson wrote:
    >>> > New to ZFS stuff so please bear with me.
    >>> > I have a hardware RAID 5 device that is broken up into 5 LUN of 1
    >>> > terabyte each. Interface is UltraSCSI 320
    >>> > OS: Solaris 10x86 11/06
    >>> > System is a Dell Poweredge 1950 with dual quadcore Xeons 2.3Ghz
    >>> > 8Gbytes memory, SCSI HBA is an Adaptec 39320 dual cahnnel HBA.
    >>> > Created a a zfs pool like this:
    >>> > zpool create home c3t5d0 c3t5d1 c3t5d2 c3t5d3 c3t5d4
    >>> > This is then mounted as /home


    5 TB for an automount /home directory?

    >>> > I am seeing very slow read/write performance from this filesystem.
    >>> > Did I need to run fdisk and format on each of the LUNs?

    > No, ZFS will have done that itself, and created GPT labels.
    >>> Is the raid5 stuff done building, before you try to use it?

    >> Yes, I made sure of that.

    > Can you disable the RAID5 and just provide a LUN per physical disk?


    Really. That was my first question. WHAT "RAID 5 device"...?
    Until we know that...

    > ZFS would much rather do the RAID5 itself (only it will use RAIDZ).


    IOW turn this 'smart'? SCSI box into a JBOD if possible.. Likely the best
    choice. I have found that smart devices - like SAN LUNs for
    example - compete with ZFS or Oracle's ASM and you end up with no
    performance gain..



  5. Re: ZFS performance

    On May 28, 1:49 pm, AGT wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:51:02 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > Craig Johnson writes:
    > >> On May 28, 11:10 am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > >>> Craig Johnson wrote:
    > >>> > New to ZFS stuff so please bear with me.
    > >>> > I have a hardware RAID 5 device that is broken up into 5 LUN of 1
    > >>> > terabyte each. Interface is UltraSCSI 320
    > >>> > OS: Solaris 10x86 11/06
    > >>> > System is a Dell Poweredge 1950 with dual quadcore Xeons 2.3Ghz
    > >>> > 8Gbytes memory, SCSI HBA is an Adaptec 39320 dual cahnnel HBA.
    > >>> > Created a a zfs pool like this:
    > >>> > zpool create home c3t5d0 c3t5d1 c3t5d2 c3t5d3 c3t5d4
    > >>> > This is then mounted as /home

    >
    > 5 TB for an automount /home directory?
    >
    > >>> > I am seeing very slow read/write performance from this filesystem.
    > >>> > Did I need to run fdisk and format on each of the LUNs?

    > > No, ZFS will have done that itself, and created GPT labels.
    > >>> Is the raid5 stuff done building, before you try to use it?
    > >> Yes, I made sure of that.

    > > Can you disable the RAID5 and just provide a LUN per physical disk?

    >
    > Really. That was my first question. WHAT "RAID 5 device"...?
    > Until we know that...
    >
    > > ZFS would much rather do the RAID5 itself (only it will use RAIDZ).

    >
    > IOW turn this 'smart'? SCSI box into a JBOD if possible.. Likely the best
    > choice. I have found that smart devices - like SAN LUNs for
    > example - compete with ZFS or Oracle's ASM and you end up with no
    > performance gain..


    The RAID device is a Sans Digital AR212 with 12 500Gb SATA-II drives
    in it.

    I can make JBOD and give that a try.

+ Reply to Thread