You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: articles/azure-netapp-files/azure-netapp-files-performance-metrics-volumes.md
+6-4Lines changed: 6 additions & 4 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ ms.author: b-juche
6
6
ms.service: azure-netapp-files
7
7
ms.workload: storage
8
8
ms.topic: conceptual
9
-
ms.date: 08/07/2019
9
+
ms.date: 09/29/2021
10
10
11
11
---
12
12
# Performance benchmark test recommendations for Azure NetApp Files
@@ -15,15 +15,17 @@ This article provides benchmark testing recommendations for volume performance a
15
15
16
16
## Overview
17
17
18
-
To understand the performance characteristics of an Azure NetApp Files volume, you can use the open-source tool [FIO](https://github.com/axboe/fio) to run a series of benchmarks to simulate a variety of workloads. FIO can be installed on both Linux and Windows-based operating systems. It is an excellent tool to get a quick snapshot of both IOPS and throughput for a volume.
18
+
To understand the performance characteristics of an Azure NetApp Files volume, you can use the open-source tool [FIO](https://github.com/axboe/fio) to run a series of benchmarks to simulate various workloads. FIO can be installed on both Linux and Windows-based operating systems. It is an excellent tool to get a quick snapshot of both IOPS and throughput for a volume.
19
+
20
+
Azure NetApp Files does *not* recommend using the `dd` utility as a baseline benchmarking tool. You should use an actual application workload, workload simulation, and benchmarking and analyzing tools (for example, Oracle AWR with Oracle, or the IBM equivalent for DB2) to establish and analyze optimal infrastructure performance. Tools such as FIO, vdbench, and iometer have their places in determining virtual machines to storage limits, matching the parameters of the test to the actual application workload mixtures for most useful results. However, it is always best to test with the real-world application.
19
21
20
22
### VM instance sizing
21
23
22
24
For best results, ensure that you are using a virtual machine (VM) instance that is appropriately sized to perform the tests. The following examples use a Standard_D32s_v3 instance. For more information about VM instance sizes, see [Sizes for Windows virtual machines in Azure](../virtual-machines/sizes.md?toc=%2fazure%2fvirtual-network%2ftoc.json) for Windows-based VMs, and [Sizes for Linux virtual machines in Azure](../virtual-machines/sizes.md?toc=%2fazure%2fvirtual-machines%2flinux%2ftoc.json) for Linux-based VMs.
23
25
24
26
### Azure NetApp Files volume sizing
25
27
26
-
Ensure that you choose the correct service level and volume quota size for the expected performance level. See [Service levels for Azure NetApp Files](azure-netapp-files-service-levels.md) for more information.
28
+
Ensure that you choose the correct service level and volume quota size for the expected performance level. For more information, see [Service levels for Azure NetApp Files](azure-netapp-files-service-levels.md).
27
29
28
30
### Virtual network (VNet) recommendations
29
31
@@ -119,4 +121,4 @@ The following example shows a GET URL for viewing logical volume size:
119
121
## Next steps
120
122
121
123
-[Service levels for Azure NetApp Files](azure-netapp-files-service-levels.md)
122
-
-[Performance benchmarks for Linux](performance-benchmarks-linux.md)
124
+
-[Performance benchmarks for Linux](performance-benchmarks-linux.md)
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: articles/azure-netapp-files/performance-benchmarks-linux.md
+9-9Lines changed: 9 additions & 9 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ ms.workload: storage
13
13
ms.tgt_pltfrm: na
14
14
ms.devlang: na
15
15
ms.topic: conceptual
16
-
ms.date: 04/29/2020
16
+
ms.date: 09/29/2021
17
17
ms.author: b-juche
18
18
---
19
19
# Azure NetApp Files performance benchmarks for Linux
@@ -26,47 +26,47 @@ This section describes performance benchmarks of Linux workload throughput and w
26
26
27
27
### Linux workload throughput
28
28
29
-
The graph below represents a 64-kibibyte (KiB) sequential workload and a 1-TiB working set. It shows that a single Azure NetApp Files volume can handle between ~1,600 MiB/s pure sequential writes and ~4,500 MiB/s pure sequential reads.
29
+
The graph below represents a 64-kibibyte (KiB) sequential workload and a 1TiB working set. It shows that a single Azure NetApp Files volume can handle between ~1,600 MiB/s pure sequential writes and ~4,500 MiB/s pure sequential reads.
30
30
31
31
The graph illustrates decreases in 10% at a time, from pure read to pure write. It demonstrates what you can expect when using varying read/write ratios (100%:0%, 90%:10%, 80%:20%, and so on).
The following graph represents a 4-kibibyte (KiB) random workload and a 1-TiB working set. The graph shows that an Azure NetApp Files volume can handle between ~130,000 pure random writes and ~460,000 pure random reads.
37
+
The following graph represents a 4-kibibyte (KiB) random workload and a 1TiB working set. The graph shows that an Azure NetApp Files volume can handle between ~130,000 pure random writes and ~460,000 pure random reads.
38
38
39
39
This graph illustrates decreases in 10% at a time, from pure read to pure write. It demonstrates what you can expect when using varying read/write ratios (100%:0%, 90%:10%, 80%:20%, and so on).
Linux 5.3 kernel enables single-client scale-out networking for NFS-`nconnect`. The graphs in this section show the validation testing results for the client-side mount option with NFSv3. The feature is available on SUSE (starting with SLES12SP4) and Ubuntu (starting with the 19.10 release). It's similar in concept to both SMB multichannel and Oracle Direct NFS.
45
+
The graphs in this section show the validation testing results for the client-side mount option with NFSv3. For more information, see [`nconnect` section of Linux mount options](performance-linux-mount-options.md#nconnect).
46
46
47
-
The graphs compare the advantages of `nconnect` to a non-connected mounted volume. In the graphs, FIO generated the workload from a single D32s_v3 instance in the us-west2 Azure region.
47
+
The graphs compare the advantages of `nconnect` to a non-`connected` mounted volume. In the graphs, FIO generated the workload from a single D32s_v4 instance in the us-west2 Azure region using a 64-KiB sequential workload – the largest I/O size supported by Azure NetApp Files at the time of the testing represented here. Azure NetApp Files now supports larger I/O sizes. For more details, see [`rsize` and `wsize` section of Linux mount options](performance-linux-mount-options.md#rsize-and-wsize).
48
48
49
49
### Linux read throughput
50
50
51
-
The following graphs show sequential reads of ~3,500 MiB/s reads with `nconnect`, roughly 2.3X non-`nconnect`.
51
+
The following graphs show 64-KiB sequential reads of ~3,500 MiB/s reads with `nconnect`, roughly 2.3X non-`nconnect`.
The following graphs show sequential writes. They indicate that `nconnect` has no noticeable benefit for sequential writes. 1,500 MiB/s is roughly both the sequential write volume upper limit and the D32s_v3 instance egress limit.
57
+
The following graphs show sequential writes. They indicate that `nconnect` has no noticeable benefit for sequential writes. 1,500 MiB/s is roughly both the sequential write volume upper limit and the D32s_v4 instance egress limit.
0 commit comments