1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ZFS benchmark on geli encrypted providers

Discussion in 'General' started by phatfish, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. phatfish

    phatfish New Member

    Messages:
    14
    Thanks Received:
    0
    These are some benchmarks from my geli encrypted setup running ZFS. My system is pretty average so maybe these will help someone else out thinking about a similar setup. I'm curious to know if the performance seems reasonable, so any opinions welcome.

    I have a root file system mirrored pool, and a 3x1.5TB raidz pool. Both running on geli encrypted providers (256bit AES).

    The system is 2.2GHz Core 2 with 2GB RAM running amd64 8.0-p1. Currently all my disks are in on-board SATA channels.

    Code:
    mylo# zpool status
      pool: zdata
     state: ONLINE
     scrub: none requested
    config:
    
            NAME              STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
            zdata             ONLINE       0     0     0
              raidz1          ONLINE       0     0     0
                label/raidz0  ONLINE       0     0     0
                label/raidz1  ONLINE       0     0     0
                label/raidz2  ONLINE       0     0     0
    
    errors: No known data errors
    
      pool: zroot
     state: ONLINE
     scrub: none requested
    config:
    
            NAME               STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
            zroot              ONLINE       0     0     0
              mirror           ONLINE       0     0     0
                label/mirror0  ONLINE       0     0     0
                label/mirror1  ONLINE       0     0     0
    
    errors: No known data errors
    


    pool: zroot full log
    Code:
    iozone -R -l 5 -u 5 -r 1024k -s 100m -F f1 f2 f3 f4 f5
    
    "Record size = 1024 Kbytes "
    "Output is in Kbytes/sec"
    "  Initial write "   82310.30
    "        Rewrite "   92564.76
    "           Read " 1433235.20
    "        Re-read " 1501567.17
    "   Reverse Read "  903336.27
    "    Stride read " 1081217.57
    "    Random read " 1035546.47
    " Mixed workload " 1040485.66
    "   Random write "   83499.81
    "         Pwrite "   77014.28
    "          Pread " 1095567.33
    iozone test complete.
    

    pool: zdata full log
    Code:
    iozone -R -l 5 -u 5 -r 1024k -s 100m -F f1 f2 f3 f4 f5
    
    "Record size = 1024 Kbytes "
    "Output is in Kbytes/sec"
    "  Initial write "  113448.10
    "        Rewrite "  103605.23
    "           Read " 1188466.19
    "        Re-read "  348667.80
    "   Reverse Read "  881118.20
    "    Stride read "  694349.38
    "    Random read "  870844.94
    " Mixed workload "  908451.61
    "   Random write "  100673.13
    "         Pwrite "   67140.55
    "          Pread "  138807.33
    iozone test complete.
    

    Larger file size, pool: zdata full log
    Code:
    iozone -R -l 5 -u 5 -r 1024k -s 1000m -F f1 f2 f3 f4 f5
    
    "Record size = 1024 Kbytes "
    "Output is in Kbytes/sec"
    "  Initial write "   60572.50
    "        Rewrite "   58039.86
    "           Read "   87605.36
    "        Re-read "   91687.08
    "   Reverse Read "   73461.97
    "    Stride read "   73672.66
    "    Random read "   73506.54
    " Mixed workload "   64688.74
    "   Random write "   57895.67
    "         Pwrite "   58445.31
    "          Pread "   88124.95
    iozone test complete.
    


    There are some really fast reads/writes from iozone with 100mb test file, i guess that is to do with caching in RAM.

    I ran a few unscientific "real world" tests. These are the results of copying a 1.8GB file between the two zpools:

    30630 Kbytes/sec read from zroot write to zdata (60-99% system load)
    31651 Kbytes/sec read from zdata write to zroot (80-99% system load)

    System load in "top" is very high during disk activity, i assume a combination of geli and zfs, although i have no comparison to a system without encryption.

    Some read and writes between my windows box and zdata over Samba, same 1.8 GB file.

    19182 Kbytes/sec write over Samba (~90% system load during disk activity)
    26014 Kbytes/sec read over Samba (~30% system load during disk activity)

    Looking at the system load i guess more RAM and more CPU power is the way to increase performance. Not that i really need to at the moment as -- for me -- 90% of large file transfers will be over Samba at far less than 26mb/sec.

    Thanks for any comments.
     
  2. gkontos

    gkontos Active Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    Thanks Received:
    245
    Those are nice results. I have a similar setup without the encryption. During samba copy (large files) from windows machines to my raidz1 I get 100% CPU usage. I would be curious to see how your box reacts during large file transfers (100GB) given the fact that you only have 2G of ram. Imagine that in my box, 4G, I would get a lot of panics so I had to limit the ARC size.

    Regards,

    George
     
  3. phatfish

    phatfish New Member

    Messages:
    14
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I'll be copying some bigger files around soon (not quite 100G tho), so i'll see how it behaves.

    I would like to upgrade my RAM to 4GB, as it's a cheap upgrade. That would also enable Prefetch because it is off by default with less than 4GB RAM, i'll see what effect it has when i do.

    One thing that is annoying, is that because writes are so intensive, while the system load is nearing 100% everything else slows very noticeably. I was a little surprised that FreeBSD didn't allow other programs running more processor time.

    I would prefer more CPU time to go to other processes so they continue to be reasonably responsive. I assume its possible to tune the system to increase the priority of user-land processes? Have have X11 running on this box with some simple applications.