From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 27 19:51:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282D8106566B for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:51:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39508FC15 for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id n5rf1d00217dt5G5A7eNyR; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:38:22 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([98.248.46.159]) by omta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id n7eM1d0073S48mS3Z7eMNP; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:38:22 +0000 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB85B1E301A; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:38:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:38:19 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Gerrit =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChn?= Message-ID: <20100227193819.GA60576@icarus.home.lan> References: <20100226141754.86ae5a3f.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <20100226174021.8feadad9.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <20100226224320.8c4259bf.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <4B884757.9040001@digiware.nl> <20100227080220.ac6a2e4d.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> <4B892918.4080701@digiware.nl> <20100227202105.f31cbef7.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20100227202105.f31cbef7.gerrit@pmp.uni-hannover.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, Willem Jan Withagen Subject: Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:51:38 -0000 On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Gerrit Kühn wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen > wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: > > WJW> > 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > WJW> > 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use > WJW> > (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of packet > WJW> > secondary zone in use (current/cache) > > WJW> Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. > WJW> > WJW> 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > WJW> 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > WJW> 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > WJW> (current/cache) > > After about 24h I now have > > 128320/2630/130950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 127294/1200/128494/512000 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 127294/834 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) Follow-up regarding my server statistics shown here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-February/055458.html I just pulled the statistics on the same servers for comparison (then vs. now). RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/09 -- primary HTTP, pri DNS, SSH server + ZFS 515/1930/2445 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 512/540/1052/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1152K/6394K/7547K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/11 -- secondary DNS, MySQL, dev box + ZFS 514/1151/1665 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 512/504/1016/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1152K/2203K/3356K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_7 i386 2008/04/19 -- secondary HTTP, SSH server, heavy memory I/O 515/820/1335 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 513/631/1144/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1154K/2615K/3769K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_8 amd64 2010/02/02 -- central backups + NFS+ZFS-based filer 1572/3423/4995 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 1539/3089/4628/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 3471K/7449K/10920K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) So, not much difference. I should point out that the NFS+ZFS-based filer doesn't actually do its backups using NFS; it uses rsnapshot (rsync) over SSH. There is intense network I/O during backup time though, depending on how much data there is to back up. The NFS mounts (on the clients) are only used to provide a way for people to get access to their nightly backups in a convenient way; it isn't used very heavily. I can do something NFS-intensive on any of the above clients if people want me to kind of testing. Possibly an rsync with a source of the NFS mount and a destination of the local disk would be a good test? Let me know if anyone's interested in me testing that. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |