To anyone that has fears of ZFS performance issues:

[Eric1024]

I'm here to silence those fears:

 

 

That benchmark was done on my windows 7 workstation over an 8Gb/s infiniband interface to my file server.

 

Here are the server specs:

-6x3TB WD Red in raidz2

-120GB crucial m4 as a boot drive

-64GB crucial m4 in 2 partitions:

    -4GB for the ZIL (ZFS intent log)

    -60GB for the L2ARC (Level 2 adaptive replacement cache)

-32GB of ram

-3770k

 

I know the 3770k is an extremely odd choice for a file server, but I had my reasons. First, I am also using the server to host several minecraft servers as well as a media server, but the main reason I chose the i7 is because I'm using the IPoIB network protocol, which has a lot of CPU overhead.

 

I'll be posting a build log soon, but in the mean time feel free to ask me any questions about ZFS, my file server, Infiniband, etc. I don't know a huge amount but I'll do my best to answer anything.

 

Here's a few quick pics of the server: (Phone pics, I don't have a nice camera, sorry :( )

 

 

 

Edit: also, ignore my signature, that was my old server  :P  Haven't updated it yet

[Eric1024]

Meh synthetic benchmarks. Do some real world file-transfers.

Okay, after the live stream ends I'll run some real-world benchmarks. I don't have any formal programs for real world testing, but I can do a large single file transfer and time it, as well as a folder full of small files and time that. I'll include all the file info for what I end up testing.

[Eric1024]

Okay, test 1: a 3.48GB or 3666MB folder on my file server with 5,435 mostly small files and 1015 folders in it, some a bit larger. Transfer time to a 4GB ram disk on my workstation was 1:11, or 71 seconds, which averages to 51.6MB/s. Transfer time the other way was 30.4 seconds, or 121 MB/s.

 

test 2: a 2.94GB or 3011MB iso file (server 2008R2) to the same 4GB ram disk. Transfer time was 12.7 seconds, or 237MB/s. Transfer time the other way was 7.4 seconds, or 407MB/s

 

I'd say both of these transfers are pretty respectable. They're not exactly in line with the synthetics, but they're definitely respectable, especially the sequential write.

 

I'll do some more testing later, multiple trials and a spreadsheet, larger ram disk, etc.

[wpirobotbuilder]

I'm here to silence those fears:

 

ZFS Benchmarks over IB, 2013.7.5.PNG

 

That benchmark was done on my windows 7 workstation over an 8Gb/s infiniband interface to my file server.

 

Here are the server specs:

-6x3TB WD Red in raidz2

-120GB crucial m4 as a boot drive

-64GB crucial m4 in 2 partitions:

    -4GB for the ZIL (ZFS intent log)

    -60GB for the L2ARC (Level 2 adaptive replacement cache)

-32GB of ram

-3770k

You have your drives divided between your Intel controller and the LSI card. Do you recommend adding a HBA to a ZFS system, and would a second controller on the motherboard perform just as well?

[Eric1024]

You have your drives divided between your Intel controller and the LSI card. Do you recommend adding a HBA to a ZFS system, and would a second controller on the motherboard perform just as well?

Adding an HBA is not necessary if you have enough ports on the motherboard (which I didn't. 6HDDs and 2 SSDs off of the z77 chipset).

 

A 3rd party controller built into the motherboard will perform just as well as an expensive HBA for mechanical disks. They're not anywhere near fast enough to saturate even a mediocre sata 3Gb/s bus.

[Bobert]

Adding an HBA is not necessary if you have enough ports on the motherboard (which I didn't. 6HDDs and 2 SSDs off of the z77 chipset).

 

A 3rd party controller built into the motherboard will perform just as well as an expensive HBA for mechanical disks. They're not anywhere near fast enough to saturate even a mediocre sata 3Gb/s bus.

 

I am using ZFS raid on my NAS running on a Z77 platform and Windows 7.

I used an Asrock Extreme 6 because of its 8 sata ports and I have all of them filled up.

I am also getting great performance over my gigabit connection, and I am assuming you only added an HBA because you didn't have enough sata ports, or was it for a different reason?

[Eric1024]

I am using ZFS raid on my NAS running on a Z77 platform and Windows 7.

I used an Asrock Extreme 6 because of its 8 sata ports and I have all of them filled up.

I am also getting great performance over my gigabit connection, and I am assuming you only added an HBA because you didn't have enough sata ports, or was it for a different reason?

Exactly. I'm using a z77 board as well but it only has the 6 ports from the chipset, so I'm using the HBA for the other 2 drives (I have 6HDDs plus 2SSDs)