Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:34:29 +0100 From: infoomatic <infoomatic@gmx.at> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: improving nfs client & server performance Message-ID: <a3674586-483d-4a48-9c16-58b841111667@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: <CABXB=RQuJana-GHCszZdWZpuw5CfVxFeVHFugmG9-cbhEG6R_w@mail.gmail.com> References: <ZxZbPmv_11tS5pxZ@int21h> <CAM5tNy4scNutJXdOL=UmK_NhObcfbwpnUpL1dFqe3JVeJVWvcQ@mail.gmail.com> <Zxai_n-LhohogSEY@int21h> <CAM5tNy5j6RknwbvcXjCDs02r1JEO4_De3mY8JHrxYNb0nKhNrw@mail.gmail.com> <ZyAhC8GGA5zEbK4P@int21h> <CABXB=RQuJana-GHCszZdWZpuw5CfVxFeVHFugmG9-cbhEG6R_w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From my personal experience, regarding the usage with ZFS: * SMR disks are are absolutely to avoid, their performance is horrible. * QLC SSD disks are also horrible in performance - after a short burst of performance they go back to spindling rust disks performance On 15.11.24 17:30, J David wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 7:41=E2=80=AFPM void <void@f-m.fm> wrote: >> [1] context is root creating a tar on a nfs mount. The tar is huge, >> over a Tb, > [...] >> [2] The SMR hd > > FWIW, writing extremely large files is pretty much the worst-case > scenario for SMR drives. > >> it just gets *very* *slow*. > > That's what SMR does. > >> It's zfs, but single disk, 8Tb. > > Perhaps I'm overstating the case, but I believe that using ZFS on SMR > disks is strongly discouraged. I haven't tried myself, mainly due to > the horror stories I've read. Stories that sound a lot like yours. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a3674586-483d-4a48-9c16-58b841111667>