From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Sun Feb 7 15:55:20 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C585552FEC2 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 15:55:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from "") Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DYYdh0f59z4lxx for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 15:55:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from "") Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4959A160065 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 16:55:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4DYYdc25jFz9rxR; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 16:55:16 +0100 (CET) From: Walter von Entferndt To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tuning and monitoring write intensive server Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 16:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: <2002412.uJW0cDvVUg@t450s.local.lan> X-Face: #$[hC+4[4W*mS3hB&izisyT_#E]^Aq+7Isv`2Tu5q*1~jR@&['74B>Ibyrk]GTJ!j$ NjX=#L2#k2X7OnaaRM_Pd5`>`8OJ3; +I2 References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DYYdh0f59z4lxx X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=posteo.net (policy=none); spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mout01.posteo.de has no SPF policy when checking 185.67.36.141) smtp.helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.70 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-performance@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[185.67.36.141:from]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8495, ipnet:185.67.36.0/23, country:DE]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-performance]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[posteo.net : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none] X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 15:55:20 -0000 At Sonntag, 7. Februar 2021, 13:00:04 CET Vladilen Kozin wrote: > [1 dedicated disk/ufs per thread, no redundency,...] RTFM tuning(7), zpool(8), zfs(8), gjournal(8), gstripe(8), gsched(8). - Obviously striping the disks will be beneficial, but it seems you don't want that (not enough disks?) & know what you're doing. I suppose your special task can tolerate data loss intentionally (no redundency). - Having the intent log on a dedicated, fast medium (SSD or NVD) would gain performance. Either ZFS can do that, or you can use gjournal(8). - Inserting an I/O scheduler might improve performance, too (gsched(8)). Yes, UFS is likely faster than ZFS on such a setup, but ZFS offers many advantages in terms of administration, fault tolerance & reliability. You can fetch my scripts to insert the scheduler (rc(8) script) & fs_summarize.awk to estimate the parameters for newfs(8) from the forums in the thread "Useful scripts". I.e. run the AWK script on some samples of your working data, then adjust the appropiate knobs to newfs(8). Note that ZFS automagically adjusts to the I/O chunk size. To monitor the I/O, use systat(1). Additionally, you can find a plethora of ports(7) for this, use psearch(1) or portfind(1) (install 1st). -- =|o) "Stell' Dir vor es geht und keiner kriegt's hin." (Wolfgang Neuss)