Settings>Advanced>Performance Test

[SwampRabbit]

Can someone give me a break down on this?

I don't remember seeing it in 9.2.1.6, but I might not have paid attention to it either.
I did a double take through the manual, but didn't see anything related to it, and didn't see it in other release info updates. (but I didn't go too far back)

I did run it and got a text file for a Iozone: Performance Test of File I/O, so that tells me it is using IOzone.
Looked that up, that is in the manual, but the "Performance Test" part isn't.

The text does not seem aligned properly when it produces the file.
I can see some useful information I suppose.

But understanding the test results from the output is pretty difficult.

 

[cyberjock]

Yeah.. nobody knows what its for....

 

[dlavigne]

I didn't realize it was backported for 9.2.1.7...

There is a brief description of it if you search for the term "performance test" in the 9.3 docs.

 

[SwampRabbit]

Ok thank you dlavigne

 

[dlavigne]

You're welcome. I'll add it to the 9.2.1.7 Errata tomorrow.

 

[SwampRabbit]

Awesome, thanks again.

For anyone that runs across this thread before it becomes well known.

The 9.3 (temp User Guide) that was referenced states this:
Performance Test: runs a series of performance tests and prompts to saves the results as a tarball. Since running the tests can affect performance, a warning is provided and the tests should be run at a time that will least impact users.

Didn't see much else in there on it from the quick search so far.

Currently, or at least from my attempt running it, it runs a IOzone test.
From the output it is the /usr/local/bin/iozone -r 128 -s 41943040k -i 0 -i 1 command

 

[Wolfeman0101]

Sorry to bump such an old thread but I haven't seen anything else about this feature on the forums. So what do you do once you get the file? I ran a test and it spit out a tarball and I don't know how to view the information.

 

[Rilo Ravestein]

Never used a compressed file (archive) before? Just unzip it.

 

[Wolfeman0101]

Never used a compressed file (archive) before? Just unzip it.

Yeah I unzip it and it's just a file with no extension. When I open in in Notepad++ it doesn't say anything.

 

[Rilo Ravestein]

That makes no sense... What's the filename of the unzipped file? And size? What program do you use to unzip it?

 

[Wolfeman0101]

That makes no sense... What's the filename of the unzipped file? And size? What program do you use to unzip it?

7-zip. So I guess it's Notepad++ that's making it look so odd. I figured it out now.

 

[Wolfeman0101]

Still not really sure how to interpret the data.

http://pastebin.com/p4MaJ4Gk

 

[Rilo Ravestein]

Maybe if you turn off word wrapping, or whatever it's called, the numbers are aligned with the labels, it makes more sense.
It gives you info on the read/write performance of your pool.

 

[Glorious1]

Maybe I'm missing something. Where does it put the tarball?
When I started the test, I g0t a progress bar that stays at 0 for 20 minutes. I got tired of watching. When I came back later the progress bar was gone. That's it.

 

[dlavigne]

It should give a pop-up message asking you to save it when it finishes. If it doesn't, something went wrong.

 

[Glorious1]

Well, I tried it again, and sure enough it did finish and create a file this time. Any input on gauging/interpreting the results?

Code:

Record Size 128 KB
    File size set to 41943040 KB
    Command line used: /usr/local/bin/iozone -r 128 -s 41943040k -i 0 -i 1
    Output is in Kbytes/sec
    Time Resolution = 0.000001 seconds.
    Processor cache size set to 1024 Kbytes.
    Processor cache line size set to 32 bytes.
    File stride size set to 17 * record size.
                                                                    
              KB  reclen   write rewrite    read    reread   
        41943040     128  263337  241653   144857   147578  

I guess it's writing at about 25o MB/sec and reading about 145 MB/sec? I'm not sure why the big difference, but that seems plenty fast to me, since it's probably faster than the network.

 

[Rilo Ravestein]

No way to tell, since you didn't provide any system specs.

 

[Glorious1]

Like yours, my system specs are behind the button. I don't know what might be relevant. I have two pools and don't know which one this test might have used, but the pool with the .system on it is all the WD Greens.
Motherboard: SuperMicro A1SRi-2758F mini-ITX with integrated
CPU: Intel Atom C2758 CPU, 8-core 2.4 GHz, TDP 20 W
HBA/Expander: LSI 9240-8i PCIe board flashed to IT mode, provides 8 SATA ports
RAM: Crucial 2x 8GB SO-DIMM 204-pin Unbuff. ECC DDR3-1600 1.35V
Drives: 4x WD Red NAS 3 TB, 4x WD Green 3 TB
Power Supply: SeaSonic Platinum Series SS-400FL2 Fanless, Active PFC
Case: Lian Li PC-Q26 with 4x 120-mm fans and room for 10 3.5" drives
FreeNAS: 9.3-STABLE-201412142326, five disks in RaidZ1 (remaining disks for backup)
Boot Device: SanDisk 8 GB Cruzer Fit

 

[Rilo Ravestein]

Strange.... I did not see that button earlier.... Sorry, my bad. Think i need new contact lenses

Pool setup and size, disk type and size are very relevant, also memory and probably more stuff (i'm by no means an expert). Performance result looks a bit slow to me, but the one and only thing i can compare it to is my own setup, which is double the read and triple the write performance you're having there.

 

[cyberjock]

Well, look at those goofy eyes! You don't need contacts, you need to not try to give a goofy look in your profile picture! Duh!