From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 22 16:14:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BA7EAF1 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:14:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29021F0B for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:14:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id l13so3002014iga.12 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ucsc.edu; s=ucsc-google; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0Gg5UOsXpDsrKscYfVZ1C86ukUgBK1eQyTPi6/FP/2I=; b=HaOlnTQ/gWBfEY9/uUh1I1OELNfQRKWB6buzQHPJOHRUl6MnVXY3Kx8ZdItkI5POC1 v3GwmVKgqUjXJ/bKigO6688tP0WdyJIaZRNPnoyKFhMS8D+ol9H/izo1wCm8UnCdrWpJ KB47jmfDF4uiEZeGB9Tb/nOx6UYJPEFNBfClI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0Gg5UOsXpDsrKscYfVZ1C86ukUgBK1eQyTPi6/FP/2I=; b=deKTVRHXgSiAQKt/tLSTJff/zl4tknlsxtNl9yhRs3wmd3fFdjAeKMMf23ZWLEFNC0 ChPwEpswKUrSqmI+M7Q7Of2SIcva0XBnp3mVFOw6JL2A/mUfLLklLjylTcswCeV781ds 5bYHd54WpA/yYMVfqt1LLU6yqsZBU0EXQpIO9cMnnIVTDamzd02AWE2wn14CN86al+xT bJHRk2kvhKng+bWxAlxpNS5/zApN0JgVefBhps1eD/ZyaC3tAOZGtSPEp3lwY1NB26yM PP7lL/u3sF2s6IR/Nrg9iE8DoQbPnXu5AkFpeUzOqccYzsHJQamitgKxSouGshEfatGh 81uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldrjRxAM6/eE4HFSBtSpubAgqadPc4vWM31+yOkMVGkA/nIAhpIJkjVJG+gcUTR3lFdWH8 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.170.196 with SMTP id ao4mr15475653igc.46.1411402497378; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.158.200 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:14:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: ZFS Warning Since Upgrade to 10.0 From: Tim Gustafson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:14:58 -0000 I recently upgraded a ZFS file server from 9.2 to 10.0 and then started getting this warning when I run zpool status: status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block size. Expect reduced performance. action: Replace affected devices with devices that support the configured block size, or migrate data to a properly configured pool. I Googled around a bit, and understand the warning, but I have a problem: that zpool is 135TB and I don't have 135TB of disks laying around, nor the controllers necessary to support an additional 135TB of disks, to migrate this zpool to a properly configured one, nor could I easily have the server off-line for the requisite time that would be required to transfer 100+ TB of data from one set of hard drives to another. So my questions are: How much will this sub-optimal configuration affect performance? Does the upgrade to 10.0 represent a reduction in performance, or was the reduction in performance always there and just not reported? This server is used to store genome data, so performance is pretty important, but the users were happy with the performance when it was a 9.2 server. If I convince the users to go through an upgrade process to fix this issue, how much of a boost in performance can they expect to see? If it's a 2% boost, I don't think I can get them to invest in the upgrade, but it it's a 100% boost, I'm pretty sure I can. -- Tim Gustafson tjg@ucsc.edu 831-459-5354 Baskin Engineering, Room 313A