Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:46:56 +0200 From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-lists@klop.ws> To: "FreeBSD Filesystems" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, "Rainer Duffner" <rainer@ultra-secure.de> Subject: Re: zfs receive stalls whole system Message-ID: <op.yhlr8ifwkndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> In-Reply-To: <op.yhlr40k3kndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> References: <0C2233A9-C64A-4773-ABA5-C0BCA0D037F0@ultra-secure.de> <op.yhlr40k3kndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 May 2016 12:44:50 +0200, Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> = wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2016 01:07:24 +0200, Rainer Duffner = > <rainer@ultra-secure.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have two servers, that were running FreeBSD 10.1-AMD64 for a long = >> time, one zfs-sending to the other (via zxfer). Both are NFS-servers = = >> and MySQL-slaves, the sender is actively used as NFS-server, the = >> recipient is just a warm-standby, in case something serious happens a= nd = >> we don=E2=80=99t want to wait for a day until the restore is back in = place. The = >> MySQL-Slaves are actively used as read-only servers (at the applicati= on = >> level, Python=E2=80=99s SQL-Alchemy does that, apparently). >> >> They are HP DL380G8 (one CPU, hexacore) with over 128 GB RAM (I think= = >> one has 144, the other has 192). >> While they were running 10.1, they used HP P420 RAID-controllers with= = >> individual 12 RAID0 volumes that I pooled into 6-disk RAIDZ2 vdevs. >> I use zfsnap to do hourly, daily and weekly snapshots. >> >> Sending worked well, especially after updating to 10.1 >> >> Because the storage was over 90% full (and I really hate this = >> RAID0-business we have with the HP RAID controllers), I rebuilt the = >> servers with HPs OEMed H220/221 controllers (LSI 2308 in disguise) an= d = >> an external disk shelf, hosting 12 additional disks was added- and I = = >> upgraded to FreeBSD 10.3. >> Because we didn=E2=80=99t want to throw out the original disks, but i= ncrease = >> available space a lot, the new disks are double the size of the = >> original disks (600 vs. 1200 GB SAS). >> I also created GPT-partitions on the disks and labeled them according= = >> to the disk=E2=80=99s position in the cages/shelf, created the pools = with the = >> got-partition-names instead of the daX-names. >> >> Now, when I do a zxfer, sometimes the whole system stalls while the = >> data is sent over, especially if the delta is large or if something = >> else is reading from the disk at the same time (backup agent). >> >> I had this before, on 10.0 (I believe, we didn=E2=80=99t have this in= 9.1 = >> either, IIRC) and it went away in 10.1. >> >> It=E2=80=99s very difficult (well, impossible) to debug, because the = system = >> totally hangs and doesn=E2=80=99t accept any keypresses. >> >> Would a ZIL help in this case? >> I always thought that NFS was the only thing that did SYNC writes=E2=80= =A6 > > Databases love SYNC writes too. (But that doesn't say anything about t= he = > unresponsive system). > I think there is a statistic somewhere in FreeBSD to analyze the sync = vs = > async writes and decide if a ZIL will help or not. (But that doesn't s= ay = > anything about the unresponsive system either). > > Ronald. One question. You did not enable dedup(lication)? Ronald.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.yhlr8ifwkndu52>