Search results

Results worse like expected, more IOPS in bandwidth just because of more involved VDEVs.. root@pve01:~# fio --ioengine=psync --filename=/dev/zvol/tank1/speedtest --size=9G --time_based --name=fio --group_reporting --runtime=600 --direct=1 --sync=1 --iodepth=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=32...

Yes, thats what i already did in #26, this one is just for fun ;-)

testing this now: pool: tank1 state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank1 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 nvme2n1 ONLINE 0 0 0 nvme2n2...

Yes, i want to use the other slot for a fast NIC. I striped the namespaces and mirrored the drives. I use these striped VDEVs also on Truenas. ZFS loves it!

Yes, those results are done with 512b. Please see my HW setup below. Looks like ZFS don't benefit from more namespaces :( root@pve01:~# nvme list Node SN Model Namespace Usage Format FW Rev ----------------...

I did it, just formated them back to 512b to show my 2nd result is close to your 4k bandwith benchmark. Will format them back and test again and do also test them with more namespaces. I did it with storage executive on centos, because win10 ist not supported for creating namespaces.

Hi, here are my tests from a similar setup. My results don't differ, if i change the LBA size to 4k. Any ideas? Many thanks! Michael root@pve01:~# nvme list Node SN Model Namespace Usage Format...

Many thanks! It's running fine now :-)

Hi aaron, i tried this because i've got exact the same disks. The fio test on the ZVOL with option --direct=1 stop with this error: fio-3.12 Starting 32 processes fio: Laying out IO file (1 file / 9216MiB) fio: looks like your file system does not support direct=1/buffered=0 fio: looks like...