From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mon Sep 5 08:04:37 2016 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 02B0CB71DC0 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:04:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from juergen.gotteswinter@internetx.com) Received: from mx1.internetx.com (mx1.internetx.com [62.116.129.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D5AC0B for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:04:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from juergen.gotteswinter@internetx.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.internetx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C602A4C4C886; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:04:32 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: InterNetX GmbH amavisd-new at ix-mailer.internetx.de Received: from mx1.internetx.com ([62.116.129.39]) by localhost (ix-mailer.internetx.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m9lguncHJJ2K; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:04:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.100.26] (pizza.internetx.de [62.116.129.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.internetx.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D35CE45FC107; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:04:28 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: juergen.gotteswinter@internetx.com Subject: Re: [ZFS] refquota is very slow ! References: <1472914773423.63807@kuleuven.be> <0E828163-AEAB-4C8C-BFCF-93D42B3DB3B6@gmail.com> <1524067530.1937.a66cb17f-9141-4bef-b758-5bb129d16681.open-xchange@ox.internetx.com> To: Ben RUBSON , FreeBSD FS From: InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter Organization: InterNetX GmbH Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:04:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 08:04:37 -0000 any special reason for disabling secondarycache and limiting the primarycache to metadata? does it change something when you revert it to default? compression -> lz4, even if its not compressable, it wont hurt you probably got several smaller performance issues which end up in this mess all together. Am 04.09.2016 um 17:16 schrieb Ben RUBSON: > Same kind of results with a single local (SSD) disk based pool, refquota takes much more time than quota around the limit. > > Here is the output for this single disk based pool : > zfs get all : http://pastebin.com/raw/TScgy0ps > zdb : http://pastebin.com/raw/BxmQ4xNx > zpool get all : http://pastebin.com/raw/XugMbydy > > Thank you ! > > Ben > > >> On 04 Sep 2016, at 13:42, InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter wrote: >> >> Did you try the same in a single local disk based pool? And pls post output of >> zfs get all, zdb & zpool get all >> >> >>> Ben RUBSON hat am 4. September 2016 um 11:28 >>> geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Juergen & Bram, >>> >>> Thank you for your feedback. >>> >>> I then investigated further and think I found the root cause. >>> >>> No issue with refquota in my zroot pool containing (in this example) 300.000 >>> inodes used. >>> >>> However, refquota is terribly slow in my data pool containing around >>> 12.000.000 inodes used. >>> >>> I then created 12.000.000 empty file in my zroot pool, in a test dataset. >>> I put a refquota on this dataset and created a dd file to fulfil empty space. >>> And around the limit, it began to stall... >>> I then created an empty dataset in the same pool, refquota is even slow in >>> this dataset having no inode used. >>> The root cause seems then to be the total number of inodes used in the pool... >>> >>> Some numbers : >>> Time to fulfil 512MB with quota : 17s >>> Time to fulfil 512MB with refquota : 3m35s >>> >>> Very strange. >>> >>> Do you experience the same thing ? >>> >>> Thank you again, >>> >>> Ben >>> >>>> On 03 Sep 2016, at 16:59, Bram Vandoren wrote: >>>> >>>> I encountered the same problem over NFS. I didn't manage to reproduce it not >>>> using NFS. I think the userquota property works without any problem though. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Bram. >>> >>>> On 03 Sep 2016, at 12:26, InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> cant confirm this, works like a charm without difference to normal quota >>>> setting >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >