From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Fri Jun 5 20:57:20 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 E0E9A3378BB for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 20:57:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-lists@klop.ws) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (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 49dw275PVvz3Zxl for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 20:57:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-lists@klop.ws) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.110.112]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jhJOu-00021U-7p; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:57:16 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" , "Miroslav Lachman" <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Subject: Re: ZFS on FreeBSD 11.3 slower than 10.4 References: <1ff455a5-d111-86fa-ceb1-1021b6d9a5b6@quip.cz> <8c64cc48-7d79-7591-8bb5-67f3127463b7@quip.cz> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:57:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8c64cc48-7d79-7591-8bb5-67f3127463b7@quip.cz> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (FreeBSD) X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 398f5522cb258ce43cb679602f8cfe8b62a256d1 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Scan-Signature: ee739817b6cd2655ac6326818c89325b X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49dw275PVvz3Zxl X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ronald-lists@klop.ws designates 195.190.28.88 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ronald-lists@klop.ws X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.46 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(0.00)[195.190.28.88:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:195.190.28.64/27]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.003]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[klop.ws]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.64)[-0.636]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[195.190.28.88:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.02)[-1.021]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:47172, ipnet:195.190.28.0/24, country:NL]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 20:57:20 -0000 On Sat, 30 May 2020 23:29:48 +0200, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > On 2020-05-30 22:10, Ronald Klop wrote: >> On Sat, 23 May 2020 21:44:03 +0200, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> >> wrote: >> >>> I upgraded my old desktop computer few month ago from old 10.4 based >>> PC-BSD to stock FreeBSD 11.3. It uses single 2TB HDD 7200rpm. >>> My problem is that upgraded version is really slow and some desktop >>> applications are very lagging (playing multimedia is interrupted for a >>> fraction of seconds) when there is heavy filesystem activity. >>> >>> I am using zfsnap2 for taking snapshots periodically and when there is >>> enough snapshots zfs destroy is called. In this time the user >>> experience is terrible. Starting new application like browser or even >>> something much smaller takes minutes. The old version based on FreeBSD >>> 10.4 behaves much better. I used the old version for years and never >>> have problems with interrupted multimedia playback. >>> >>> Are there some sysctls to tune to get better desktop interactivity in >>> heavy filesystem operations like zfs destroy, pkg check or other >>> "find" periodic scripts? > > >> How full is the disk? ZFS has poor performance if the disk becomes full. >> What is in /etc/sysctl.conf and /boot/loader.conf? >> And did you try to boot 12.1 and did it have the same behavious? > > It is currently 77% full. But it is the same pool with the same capacity > as with 10.4. > > I didn't try 12.1, I need to stay on 11.3 for now. > > ## loader.conf > > nvidia_load="YES" > drm_load="YES" > drm2_load="YES" > iicbus_load="YES" > vboxdrv_load="YES" > crypto_load="YES" > aesni_load="YES" > geom_eli_load="YES" > vfs.zfs.arc_max="1024M" > zfs_load="YES" > iicbus_load="YES" > > ## sysctl.conf > > kern.coredump=0 > kern.maxfiles=49312 > vfs.usermount=1 > security.jail.allow_raw_sockets=1 > security.jail.sysvipc_allowed=1 > security.jail.mount_allowed=1 > security.jail.chflags_allowed=1 > hw.syscons.bell=0 > kern.sched.preempt_thresh=224 > kern.ipc.shm_allow_removed=1 > kern.shutdown.poweroff_delay=500 > kern.bootfile=/boot/kernel/kernel > hw.usb.no_shutdown_wait=1 > hw.snd.default_unit=3 > kern.sched.interact=10 > vfs.aio.max_aio_per_proc=256 > vfs.aio.max_aio_queue=8192 > vfs.aio.max_aio_queue_per_proc=1024 > vfs.aio.max_buf_aio=64 > net.local.stream.recvspace=65536 > net.local.stream.sendspace=65536 > > > loader.conf and sysctl.conf are the same for 10.4 and 11.3 but 11.3 is > much much slower when it comes to heavy IO like "find" daily periodic > scripts, zfs destroy, starting new applications etc. > > > Kind regards > Miroslav Lachman I don't have anything I see which I'm sure will fix things, but you could try to remove/comment some of these sysctls to see if 11.3 has better defaults now. kern.sched.preempt_thresh, kern.maxfiles, kern.sched.interact, vfs.aio.* What kind of machine is it? CPU, MEM? What does gstat say about the saturation of the disk? Regards, Ronald.