From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 4 13:11:28 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A771679 for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 13:11:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67D01376 for ; Sun, 4 May 2014 13:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from study64.tdx.co.uk (study64.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.231]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s44DBJZp053148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 4 May 2014 14:11:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 14:11:19 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz To: Pete French , freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone using HAST in production / performance? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:11:28 -0000 --On 29 April 2014 16:55:04 +0100 Pete French wrote: > A belated followup to this, but yes, I have been using it in > production for a while now - it replaces an older stack > we constructed based on gmirror and ggated. Much mucy better and > far more repliable. I've used ggated before - I never got it working reliably enough to use :( - But it was very, very fast! ;) > Performance wise I havent done any real testing I am > afraid, aside form looking at raw disc bandwidth using > gstat when we are doing a heavy operation. There we get > about 50 meg/second, which is more or less what I would expecrt > over gig ether. My main concern is - if I take 4 'local' disks and run ZFS atop of them (2 mirrors of 2) I get 130Mbyte/sec for writes. If I switch that to 4 disks over HAST (all local, no remote node - i.e. remote set to 'none') - that drops to 31Mbyte/sec. for the same setup. It doesn't get any lower with the remote node enabled - but that's a heck of a drop :( By the time you've setup a ZVOL and exported as iSCSI (or just CIFS/NFS) there's really nothing left performance wise :( > The setup is used to run mysql on top of - initially using myISAM tables, > but now using innodb. Performance appears to be fine - i,.e. I havent > noticed any issues, but as I said, we havent actually treid to measure > it. I guess if you're just using the zool 'locally' - that 31Mbyte/sec may be close to the performance you're getting [estimated]? What version of FreeBSD are you using? I'm just wondering if that's making a difference... -Karl