iometer testing

The following is some notes i have around the parameters i usually use during testing. There is a good document at ixbt labs on the various tests and settings….

For a 1GB test set the sectors to : 2048000

Typical benchmarks; (which you will need to add)

128K 100% Read – Sequential

128K 100% Write – Sequential

Remember to bump the workers up to 5 or so. You can set the mixes across all the workers if you select the PC object.

zfs compression and latency

Since im using ZFS as storage via NFS for my some of my vmware environments i need to ensure that latency on my disk is reduced where ever possible.

There is alot of talk about ZFS compression being “faster” than a non-compressed pool due to less physical data being pulled off the drives. This of course depends on the system powering ZFS, but i wanted to run some tests specifically on latency. Throughput is fine in some situations, but latency is a killer when it comes to lots of small reads and writes (in the case of hosting virtual machines)

I recently completed some basic tests focusing on the differences in latency when ZFS compression (lzjb) is enabled or disabled. IOMeter was my tool of choice and i hit my ZFS box via a mapped drive.

I’m not concerned with the actual figures, but the difference between the figures

I have run the test multiple times (to eliminate caching as a factor) and can validate that compression (on my system anyhow) increases latency

Basic Results from a “All in one” test suite… (similar results across all my tests)

ZFS uncompressed:

IOps : 2376.68
Read MBps : 15.14
Write MBps : 15.36
Average Response Time : 0.42
Average Read Response Time : 0.42
Average Write Response Time : 0.43
Average Transaction Time : 0.42

ZFS compressed: (lzjb)

IOps : 1901.82
Read MBps : 12.09
Write MBps : 12.28
Average Response Time : 0.53
Average Read Response Time : 0.44
Average Write Response Time : 0.61
Average Transaction Time : 0.53

As you can see from the results, the AWRT especially is much higher due to compression. I wouldn’t recommend using zfs compression where latency is a large factor (virtual machines)

Note: Under all the tests performed the CPU (dual core) on the zfs box was never 100% – eliminating that as a bottleneck.