Re: [Networker] recommendations for networker server upgrade

2008-05-02 01:57:39
Subject: Re: [Networker] recommendations for networker server upgrade
From: Peter Viertel <Peter.Viertel AT MACQUARIE DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:50:14 +1000
> "Co-incidently I am looking at sequential I/O issues on a Sun 
> Fire 6900
> which comes down to UFS - benchmarked UFS at 20Mb/s, ZFS at 210Mb/s on
> the same device (DMX-3 LUN).  Yes - 10 fold improvement and it wasnt
> filesystem caching."
>    Care to share your ZFS tuning ?

>From memory I vaguely recall that the ufs was found to be performing
badly because it had been grown in small increments via growfs over a
period of years, had regularly been up to 100% full and the internal
structure was a mess..  But the question this raises is if you can abuse
zfs in similar ways and also have it end up being inefficient.

That zfs test was right out of the box settings, I still don't really
know how to tune it much other that switching off checksums. I expect
it's able to go that fast when the filesystem is empty. The backend LUN
was on a DMX-3 RAID 10 on FC disks, the DMX's have a lot of ram cache

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright 
material of Macquarie Group Limited or third parties. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this email you should not read, print, re-transmit, store 
or act in reliance on this e-mail or any attachments, and should destroy all 
copies of them. Macquarie Group Limited does not guarantee the integrity of any 
emails or any attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's 
own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Group Limited.

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at or
via RSS at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>