ZFS Performance Testing: P4 Clone using WD Raptors

In my previous post on ZFS performance testing I ran through various tests on a particular test system that I had running at the time. This time round, we are testing a Intel motherboard with a Pentium 4 CPU, 2GB of RAM, and 6x74GB drives. This system was literally thrown together with spare parts laying around the home office. This is the ultimate in home made, commodity parts, down and dirty NAS setups. Using seven (6) Western Digital Raptor drives attached to three different SATA II non-RAID controllers. For the uninitiated, Raptors are SATA drives that spin at 10K RPM. So here we go….

*Note*
My intention was to run this with seven (7) disks so that it would be a WD Raptor vs WD Blue test. Unfortunately, my seventh, and last WD Raptor died during configuration. With that in mind, it is interesting nonetheless to compare the 7 disk WD Blue results with the 6 WD Raptor results.

Test rig:

  • Custom Build
  • Intel Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz Hyper Threading Enabled
  • 2GB RAM
  • Onboard SATA II
  • 6x74GB SATA II 10000 RPM – Six (6) independent drives with no RAID. Model: Western Digital Raptor
  • FreeNAS 0.7.2 Sabanda (revision 5543)-ZFS v13

GNU dd:
Tests performed from the CLI using good ole’ GNU dd. The following command was used to first write, and then read back:

dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=2M count=10000 ; dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=2M

Results:
Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

    • 150 MB/s
    • 239 MB/s

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 302 MB/s
    • 515 MB/s
    • ZFS raidz pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

      • 99 MB/s
      • 165 MB/s

    • ZFS raidz pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

      • 299 MB/s
      • 516 MB/s

    • ZFS raidz2 pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

      • 76 MB/s
      • 164 MB/s

    • ZFS raidz2 pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

      • 301 MB/s
      • 514 MB/s

      Notes, Thoughts & Mentionables:
      There are a few things worth mentioning about this system:
      This is a truly down and dirty quick and ugly build using used parts. As such, you get what you pay for and the performance data here proves that. Possibly more influential to the performance scores here could and likely is the storage controllers. The motherboard only has four ports so used/cheap/old SATA II PCI controller was used to gain the additional three ports.

      As always, the tests involving compression provide interesting insight into the limitations of various processors. While running the compression off tests, the CPU load was relatively low and the systems audible sound was unchanged. While running compression on tests, the CPU was of course showing a heavy load, but it also prompted the CPU cooler to spin at a higher (more audible) rate. Guess those old P4′s still cook :-)

      –himuraken

ZFS Performance Testing: Intel P4 Clone using WD Blue Drives

In my previous post on ZFS performance testing I ran through various tests on a particular test system that I had running at the time. This time round, we are testing a Intel motherboard with a Pentium 4 CPU, 2GB of RAM, and 7x500GB drives. This system was literally thrown together with spare parts laying around the home office. This is the ultimate in home made, commodity parts, down and dirty NAS setups. Using seven (7) Western Digital WD5000AAKS (Known as WD Blue) drives attached to three different SATA II non-RAID controllers. Historically, these drives have been used in low cost and all around cheap builds up until the WD Green drives came out. Essentially, better than Green, worse than Black, but a good mix of price/GB. So here we go….

Test rig:

  • Custom Build
  • Intel Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz Hyper Threading Enabled
  • 2GB RAM
  • Onboard SATA II
  • 7x500GB SATA II 7200 RPM – Seven (7) independent drives with no RAID. Model: Western Digital WD5000AAKS
  • FreeNAS 0.7.2 Sabanda (revision 5543)-ZFS v13

GNU dd:
Tests performed from the CLI using good ole’ GNU dd. The following command was used to first write, and then read back:

dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=2M count=10000 ; dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=2M

Results:
Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing seven (7) SATA disks

    • 130 MB/s
    • 228 MB/s

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing seven (7) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 301 MB/s
    • 508 MB/s
    • ZFS raidz pool utilizing seven (7) SATA disks

      • 81 MB/s
      • 149 MB/s

    • ZFS raidz pool utilizing seven (7) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

      • 302 MB/s
      • 512 MB/s

    • ZFS raidz2 pool utilizing seven (7) SATA disks

      • 66 MB/s
      • 144 MB/s

    • ZFS raidz2 pool utilizing seven (7) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

      • 298 MB/s
      • 515 MB/s

      Notes, Thoughts & Mentionables:
      There are a few things worth mentioning about this system:
      This is a truly down and dirty quick and ugly build using used parts. As such, you get what you pay for and the performance data here proves that. Possibly more influential to the performance scores here could and likely is the storage controllers. The motherboard only has four ports so used/cheap/old SATA II PCI controller was used to gain the additional three ports.

      As always, the tests involving compression provide interesting insight into the limitations of various processors. While running the compression off tests, the CPU load was relatively low and the systems audible sound was unchanged. While running compression on tests, the CPU was of course showing a heavy load, but it also prompted the CPU cooler to spin at a higher (more audible) rate. Guess those old P4′s still cook :-)

      –himuraken

ZFS Performance Testing: AMD Dual Core w/ 6GB DDR2 & 5x2TB SATA in raidz

In my previous post on ZFS performance testing I ran through various tests on a particular test system that I had running at the time. This time round, I have a MSI motherboard with an AMD dual core CPU, 6GB of DDR2, and 5x2TB drives. With this build we went with the HITACHI Deskstar 7K3000 HDS723020BLA642 drive which is currently available on NewEgg for $119.99 plus shipping. These drives have been strong performers and are slowly making me forget the “DeathStar” era, but only time will tell… These are in fact SATA III drives but the onboard controller that we tested through only supports SATA II. So here we go….

Test rig:

  • Custom Build
  • AMD Athlon Phenom II Dual Core
  • 6GB DDR2 RAM
  • Onboard SATA II
  • 5x2TB SATA II 7200 RPM – Five (5) independent drives with no RAID. Model: HITACHI Deskstar 7K3000
  • FreeNAS 0.7.2 Sabanda (revision 5543)-ZFS v13

GNU dd:
Tests performed from the CLI using good ole’ GNU dd. The following command was used to first write, and then read back:

dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=2M count=10000 ; dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=2M

Results:
Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

  • ZFS raidz pool utilizing five (5) SATA disks

    • 232 MB/s
    • 336 MB/s

  • ZFS raidz pool utilizing five (5) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 455 MB/s
    • 582 MB/s

    Notes, Thoughts & Mentionables:
    There are a few things worth mentioning about this system:
    Due to time restrictions, I was only able to test on the raidz vdev type. I look forward to testing again with varying vdev types/configs if and when possible.

    –himuraken

ZFS Performance Testing: Dell PowerEdge 2950 III

In my previous post on ZFS performance testing I ran through various tests on a particular test system that I had running at the time. That system has come and gone to a better place in the proverbial cloud. This go round, I have a similar server with a different ZFS configuration. Lets dive in to the system and tests.

Test rig:

  • Dell PowerEdge 2950
  • Xeon Quad Core 1.6GHz
  • 8GB RAM
  • PERC5 – Total of 5 logical drives with read ahead and write back enabled.
  • 2x160GB SATAII 7200 RPM – Hardware RAID1
  • 4x2TB SATAII 7200 RPM – Four (4) Hardware RAID0′s (Controller does not support JBOD mode)
  • FreeNAS 0.7.2 Sabanda (revision 5543)-ZFS v13

GNU dd:
Tests performed from the CLI using good ole’ GNU dd. The following command was used to first write, and then read back:

dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=2M count=10000 ; dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=2M

Results:
Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

  • Reference run: 2x160GB 7200 RPM SATAII RAID1

    • 85.6 MB/s
    • 92.5 MB/s

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing two (2) SATA disks

    • 221 MB/s
    • 206 MB/s

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing two (2) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 631 MB/s
    • 1074 MB/s

  • ZFS mirror pool utilizing two (2) SATA disks

    • 116 MB/s
    • 145 MB/s

  • ZFS mirror pool utilizing two (2) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 631 MB/s
    • 1069 MB/s
  • Notes, Thoughts & Mentionables:
    There are a few things worth mentioning about this system:
    On the hard disk side of things, the hardware RAID1 was made up of Western Digital Blue disks while the other four (4) disks are Western Digital 2TB Green drives. If you have done your home work, you already know that the WD EARS disks use 4K sectors and masks this as 512byte sectors so that OS’ don’t complain. If disks are not properly formatted and/or sector aligned with this in mind, performance takes a tremendous hit. The reason for such inexpensive disks for this build is simple: This server is configured as a backup destination and as such, size is more important than the reliability that a SAS solution would provide.

    Compressions test results were, to say the least, quite interesting. It should be noted that the stripe and mirror pools performed quite similarly. Further testing of these results will be required, but it seems that the maximum score of 1074 MB/s was limited only by the CPU. During the read test all four cores of the quad core CPU were maxed. This becomes even more interesting when you compare the results of this two disk stripe pool with my previous findings on the six disk stripe pool running the same test. The earlier test rig scored much lower and it would appear to be the difference in CPUs that made such a strong difference.

    –himuraken

ZFS Performance Testing: Dell PowerEdge 2900

***Update***
This started a simple post to share a few results from various levels of zfs/array testing. Be sure to check back from time to time as I add additional configuration results.

***Begin Original Text***
I have been playing around with ZFS on various operating systems lately and have been trying to compare performance. I figured that sharing some of my results would give others something to compare with. Plus, I am on borrowed time with this unit, it is big, loud, and taking up free space and spare time in the home office.

Test rig:

  • Dell PowerEdge 2900
  • Xeon Dual Core 3.0GHz (HT Enabled-OS showing 4 cores)
  • 14GB RAM
  • PERC5 – Total of 7 logical drives with read ahead and write back enabled.
  • 2x146GB SAS 15K RPM – Hardware RAID1 for OS
  • 6x1TB SATAII 7200 RPM – Six (6) SATAII 7200 RPM Disks for testing. (Controller does not support JBOD mode)
  • FreeNAS 0.7.2 Sabanda (revision 5543)-ZFS v13

GNU dd:
Tests performed from the CLI using good ole’ GNU dd. The following command was used to first write, and then read back:

dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=2M count=10000 ; dd if=foo of=/dev/null bs=2M

Results: Each disk configured as a separate RAID0 array on controller.
Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

  • ZFS raidz1 pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

    • 133 MB/s
    • 311 MB/s

  • ZFS raidz1 pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 414 MB/s
    • 359 MB/s

  • ZFS raidz2 pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

    • 180 MB/s
    • 286 MB/s

  • ZFS raidz2 pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 414 MB/s
    • 361 MB/s

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

    • 190 MB/s
    • 263 MB/s

  • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

    • 429 MB/s
    • 381 MB/s
  • Results: Each disk configured as a member of a single RAID0 array.
    Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

    • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

      • 353.4 MB/s
      • 473.0 MB/s

    • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

      • 420.8 MB/s
      • 340.9 MB/s
    • Results: Each disk configured as a member of a single RAID5 array.
      Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

      • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

        • 322.0 MB/s
        • 325.9 MB/s

      • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

        • 438.8x MB/s
        • 371.8 MB/s
      • Results: Each disk configured as a member of a single RAID10 array.
        Results are listed as configuration, write, then read.

        • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks

          • 251.2 MB/s
          • 304.3 MB/s

        • ZFS stripe pool utilizing six (6) SATA disks with dataset compression set to “On”

          • 430.7 MB/s
          • 360.9 MB/s
        • Notes, Thoughts & Mentionables:
          It is worth noting that the results of the datasets with compression on can be a bit misleading. This is due to the source we are using with dd; /dev/zero. Feeding a string of zeroes into a compression algorithm is probably the best case scenario when it comes to compression. In real world conditions, data being read or written that is compressible would experience an increase in performance, while non-compressible data would likely suffer a penalty.

          I am hoping to conduct the same tests on the exact hardware in the near future. I will be switching the six (6) SATA disks over to varying hardware RAID levels and comparing them again.

          ***Update***
          In a follow-up post to this one, I concluded that compression read and write performance on this particular test rig was being limited by the CPU. I am hoping to swap out the current Intel Xeon 3.0GHz dual core for a quad core for additional comparison.

          –himuraken