|
FS perf 102 : Filesystem Bandwith
Now that you can grab the disks's BW, the next question is "How do i see what
BW my local file system can push?". First lets check writes for ZFS:
fsh-mullet# /bin/time sh -c 'lockfs -f .; mkfile 1g 1g.txt; lockfs -f .'
real 17.1
user 0.0
sys 1.1
So that's 1GB/17.1s = ~62MB/s for a 1 gig file. During the
mkfile(1M), you can use iostat(1M) to see how much disk BW is
going on:
fsh-mullet# iostat -Mxnz 1
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 541.0 0.0 67.6 0.0 35.0 0.0 64.7 1 100 c0t1d0
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 567.0 0.0 70.3 0.0 33.9 0.0 59.9 1 100 c0t1d0
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 254.9 0.0 29.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 61.6 0 64 c0t1d0
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 528.1 0.0 66.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 66.2 1 100 c0t1d0
We can also use
zpool(1M)
to show just the IO for zfs:
fsh-mullet# zpool iostat 1
bw_hog 32.5K 33.7G 0 538 0 67.4M
bw_hog 189M 33.6G 0 30 0 459K
bw_hog 189M 33.6G 0 0 0 0
bw_hog 189M 33.6G 0 509 0 63.7M
bw_hog 189M 33.6G 0 544 0 68.1M
bw_hog 189M 33.6G 0 544 0 68.1M
bw_hog 189M 33.6G 0 535 0 67.0M
Now let's look at UFS writes:
fsh-mullet# /bin/time sh -c 'lockfs -f .; mkfile 1g 1g.txt; lockfs -f .'
real 18.7
user 0.1
sys 6.3
So UFS is doing 1GB/18.7s = ~57MB/s. Let's see some of that iostat:
fsh-mullet# iostat -Mxnz 1
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
4.0 70.0 0.0 58.9 0.0 10.8 0.0 145.6 0 99 c0t1d0
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
3.0 70.0 0.0 57.8 0.0 10.6 0.0 144.5 0 99 c0t1d0
extended device statistics
r/s w/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
4.0 70.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 11.2 0.0 151.3 0 99 c0t1d0
This was done on a 2-way v210 sparc box, using a SCSI disk.
And why the 'lockfs' call you ask? This ensures that all data is flushed to
disk - and measuring how long it takes to do something that doesn't necessarily
get flushed is just not legit in this case. Persistent data is good.
(2005-11-16 10:18:45.0/2005-11-16 10:18:06.0)
Permalink
Trackback: http://blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/en_US/entry/fs_perf_102_filesystem_bw
|
Posted by Russ on November 22, 2005 at 11:27 AM PST #
Yes, real storage would be nice - but let me mention my intent with this entry was not to publish numbers, but to show how to grab some very very simple numbers for filesystem performance - to encourage people to try ZFS out.
We're still tweaking the performance of ZFS and real numbers will come out soon.
Posted by eric kustarz on November 22, 2005 at 02:14 PM PST #