From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Tue Oct 3 15:03:22 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243E8E3F999; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:03:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ben.rubson@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A98907C4AB; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:03:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ben.rubson@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i82so15205575wmd.3; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hCrCM1uH3lHhMowCEUEfzBE9AYQxWOTzX0bceRvaYzA=; b=TKoTJTM/ji+z9gD0WsHrPQ7DA4hc4HUxAVpQuQVXKVUELu5R9BQnAvaKN2eVK52cSb yRr858lJ5muzWHDWEIqrd47JQ4lOUNpbTEqGhNqlbhItyxKL0Yf/F/AbvUMorNWylIF4 fTM+lxh0BKsYQICw89FSw/6tnlhDUGOBWvtApvPL0k2ogN3MfY9LxlfDGeXnEyzXbOEP 092H6ZwCIjDqrycWOTqtjyrZFHHe3SACeDI+AKl033dVuZGqBKPPyDzwoPBX6mCcb6if cSQCaV/SLF2qvFx8FBZEIy9Pz4IkGrcJ6RZkFTQVZohRXY+Kvj00JlZpMwj4h1qth2nA 3F3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hCrCM1uH3lHhMowCEUEfzBE9AYQxWOTzX0bceRvaYzA=; b=bnoDmMOtLGd7AY5ANfqmGWDBpTnkJMUwnvAjuhyUV0NE2UfyWP4D304Q2UjIQ+M9sa vkeqhPAIB8xwb9Az494FprBpN+ffoi997Rii7IkUfXwgIg0u3f3hqPtuyerYdsTRvr24 Duqcj9/tXZ5cynUJSPA1k7wQx3EZHqXWlelAu7uaw5uceGp3Hg2z2c8ICqD5Rpl+RtOQ H7pB+QLgZ7eWX5skdLiEU0xwAO8+OfFzLRP63u8zkhaUjoAx4lDxYmcjDHn96KlMU/aT h+m6US2r/d2fRklFzEGKeqic5uEfhh9i7VTNxSr/pOeN4hO65gQ3F36MxsSyypNgK47D FY8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXX+z98ElmHrxF7WdZZjvrBTKrWLN2KuoIcuVZ486k3a6hj4gSy sgobxpR5WoP0LkgBsFquJFuRcmWv X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QC4rO1x6Z979fymPYKCC/QWMczBWFNllPnUrHDkiirjL7UqkllZobQZ8VRMTtgA8hKwMzrDDA== X-Received: by 10.28.232.138 with SMTP id f10mr2683080wmi.130.1507043000017; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bens-mac.home (LFbn-MAR-1-445-220.w2-15.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2.15.38.220]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p78sm23655244wma.11.2017.10.03.08.03.19 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: ZFS prefers iSCSI disks over local ones ? From: Ben RUBSON In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:03:18 +0200 Cc: Andriy Gapon Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4A0E9EB8-57EA-4E76-9D7E-3E344B2037D2@gmail.com> <69fbca90-9a18-ad5d-a2f7-ad527d79f8ba@freebsd.org> <9342D2A7-CE29-445B-9C40-7B6A9C960D59@gmail.com> To: Steven Hartland , FreeBSD-scsi , Freebsd fs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 15:03:22 -0000 > On 03 Oct 2017, at 16:58, Steven Hartland = wrote: >=20 > On 03/10/2017 15:40, Ben RUBSON wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> I start a new thread to avoid confusion in the main one. >> (ZFS stalled after some mirror disks were lost) >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 03 Oct 2017, at 09:39, Steven Hartland wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On 03/10/2017 08:31, Ben RUBSON wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On 03 Oct 2017, at 09:25, Steven Hartland wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 03/10/2017 07:12, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 02/10/2017 21:12, Ben RUBSON wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On a FreeBSD 11 server, the following online/healthy zpool : >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> home >>>>>>> mirror-0 >>>>>>> label/local1 >>>>>>> label/local2 >>>>>>> label/iscsi1 >>>>>>> label/iscsi2 >>>>>>> mirror-1 >>>>>>> label/local3 >>>>>>> label/local4 >>>>>>> label/iscsi3 >>>>>>> label/iscsi4 >>>>>>> cache >>>>>>> label/local5 >>>>>>> label/local6 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> A sustained read throughput of 180 MB/s, 45 MB/s on each iscsi = disk >>>>>>> according to "zpool iostat", nothing on local disks (strange but = I >>>>>>> noticed that IOs always prefer iscsi disks to local disks). >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Are your local disks SSD or HDD? >>>>>> Could it be that iSCSI disks appear to be faster than the local = disks >>>>>> to the smart ZFS mirror code? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Steve, what do you think? >>>>>>=20 >>>>> Yes that quite possible, the mirror balancing uses the queue depth = + >>>>> rotating bias to determine the load of the disk so if your iSCSI = host >>>>> is processing well and / or is reporting non-rotating vs rotating = for >>>>> the local disks it could well be the mirror is preferring reads = from >>>>> the the less loaded iSCSI devices. >>>>>=20 >>>> Note that local & iscsi disks are _exactly_ the same HDD (same = model number, >>>> same SAS adapter...). So iSCSI ones should be a little bit slower = due to >>>> network latency (even if it's very low in my case). >>>>=20 >>> The output from gstat -dp on a loaded machine would be interesting = to see too. >>>=20 >> So here is the gstat -dp : >>=20 >> L(q) ops/s r/s kBps ms/r w/s kBps ms/w d/s kBps ms/d %busy Name >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da0 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da1 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da2 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da3 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da4 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da5 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da6 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da7 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da8 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da9 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da10 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da11 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da12 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da13 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da14 >> 1 370 370 47326 0.7 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 23.2| da15 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da16 >> 0 357 357 45698 1.4 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 39.3| da17 >> 0 348 348 44572 0.7 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 22.5| da18 >> 0 432 432 55339 0.7 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 27.5| da19 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da20 >> 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0| da21 >>=20 >> The 4 active drives are the iSCSI targets of the above quoted pool. >>=20 >> A local disk : >>=20 >> Geom name: da7 >> Providers: >> 1. Name: da7 >> Mediasize: 4000787030016 (3.6T) >> Sectorsize: 512 >> Mode: r0w0e0 >> descr: HGSTxxx >> lunid: 5000xxx >> ident: NHGDxxx >> rotationrate: 7200 >> fwsectors: 63 >> fwheads: 255 >>=20 >> A iSCSI disk : >>=20 >> Geom name: da19 >> Providers: >> 1. Name: da19 >> Mediasize: 3999688294912 (3.6T) >> Sectorsize: 512 >> Mode: r1w1e2 >> descr: FREEBSD CTLDISK >> lunname: FREEBSD MYDEVID 12 >> lunid: FREEBSD MYDEVID 12 >> ident: iscsi4 >> rotationrate: 0 >> fwsectors: 63 >> fwheads: 255 >>=20 >> Sounds like then the faulty thing is the rotationrate set to 0 ? >=20 > Absolutely Good catch then, thank you ! > and from the looks you're not stressing the iSCSI disks so they get = high queuing depths hence the preference. > As load increased I would expect the local disks to start seeing = activity. Yes this is also what I see. Any way however to set rotationrate to 7200 (or to a slightly greater = value) as well for iSCSI drives ? I looked through ctl.conf(5) and iscsi.conf(5) but did not found = anything related. Many thanks ! Ben