I have run some tests on a Sun Blade 1000 configured as follows:

2 x 900MHz UltraSparc III
2 x GB RAM

Disk0 Fujitsu MAT3147FC
Disk1 Seagate ST3146707FC

Solaris 10 installed on disk0 with root, usr, var as UFS and /opt /tank
/u01 /zones as zfs

I have a simple shell script named diskbackup creating in the current
directory file ufsdumps of root, usr and var and a tar cpf of /opt
/tank /u01 and /zones. Total space used ~22GB

Test 1:

Create new UFS filesystem on Disk1 (c1t2d0s7 taking the whole disk
drive)
mount under /big
create /big/backup
cd /big/backup
run "time diskbackup"
done it 3 times, average elapsed time 18 minutes.

end test 1.

unmount /big

zpool create -f big c1t2d0s7
create /big/backup
cd /big/backup
run "time diskbackup"
done it 3 times, average elapsed time 28 minutes

end test 2.

Conclusion: zfs is good, but significantly slower, at least with my
tests.
Would it make a difference if I create the zpool on c1t2d0 rather than
on the whole disk c1t2d0s7 slice? Actually I did try that before on
another older hard drive (to assign c1t2d0 to the zpool), and it was a
pain to find a way to relabel it appropriately, so I did not want to do
it on my new ultraquiet and expensive Seagate.

HD

On 8 Sep 2006 17:58:00 -0700 "haydude" <haydude@alpensea.com> wrote:
> Test 1:
>
> Create new UFS filesystem on Disk1 (c1t2d0s7 taking the whole disk
> drive)
> mount under /big
> create /big/backup
> cd /big/backup
> run "time diskbackup"
> done it 3 times, average elapsed time 18 minutes.
>
> end test 1.
>
> unmount /big
>
> zpool create -f big c1t2d0s7
> create /big/backup
> cd /big/backup
> run "time diskbackup"
> done it 3 times, average elapsed time 28 minutes
>
> end test 2.
>
> Conclusion: zfs is good, but significantly slower, at least with my
> tests.
> Would it make a difference if I create the zpool on c1t2d0 rather than
> on the whole disk c1t2d0s7 slice?

Seems like it would, as the word on the street is that using the whole
disk enables the write cache.

> Actually I did try that before on
> another older hard drive (to assign c1t2d0 to the zpool), and it was a
> pain to find a way to relabel it appropriately, so I did not want to do
> it on my new ultraquiet and expensive Seagate.

Did you not read any of the multiple followups to your post about this?
Several folks explained how to relabel your disk easily.

-frank

Frank Cusack wrote:

> On 8 Sep 2006 17:58:00 -0700 "haydude" <haydude@alpensea.com> wrote:
> > Test 1:

> Did you not read any of the multiple followups to your post about this?
> Several folks explained how to relabel your disk easily.

Yes I did, though, I haven't tried it yet.

HD

Some days before I read a good blog about ZFS performance vs. UFS. May be
this could help you to:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/

Denis


"haydude" <haydude@alpensea.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1157763480.371168.93720@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>I have run some tests on a Sun Blade 1000 configured as follows:
>
> 2 x 900MHz UltraSparc III
> 2 x GB RAM
>
> Disk0 Fujitsu MAT3147FC
> Disk1 Seagate ST3146707FC
>
> Solaris 10 installed on disk0 with root, usr, var as UFS and /opt /tank
> /u01 /zones as zfs
>
> I have a simple shell script named diskbackup creating in the current
> directory file ufsdumps of root, usr and var and a tar cpf of /opt
> /tank /u01 and /zones. Total space used ~22GB
>
> Test 1:
>
> Create new UFS filesystem on Disk1 (c1t2d0s7 taking the whole disk
> drive)
> mount under /big
> create /big/backup
> cd /big/backup
> run "time diskbackup"
> done it 3 times, average elapsed time 18 minutes.
>
> end test 1.
>
> unmount /big
>
> zpool create -f big c1t2d0s7
> create /big/backup
> cd /big/backup
> run "time diskbackup"
> done it 3 times, average elapsed time 28 minutes
>
> end test 2.
>
> Conclusion: zfs is good, but significantly slower, at least with my
> tests.
> Would it make a difference if I create the zpool on c1t2d0 rather than
> on the whole disk c1t2d0s7 slice? Actually I did try that before on
> another older hard drive (to assign c1t2d0 to the zpool), and it was a
> pain to find a way to relabel it appropriately, so I did not want to do
> it on my new ultraquiet and expensive Seagate.
>
> HD
>