From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 22 18:29:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 3762EE83 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (smtp1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9B6167 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 65534) id DB4C820E7088E; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:29:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=8.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DOS_OE_TO_MX, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,RDNS_DYNAMIC,STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from r2d2 (82-69-141-170.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.141.170]) by smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7227320E7088A; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:29:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <6EF866714C19452C86C1BC0C99539D00@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Tim Gustafson" , References: Subject: Re: ZFS Warning Since Upgrade to 10.0 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:29:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 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 18:29:27 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Gustafson" To: Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:14 PM Subject: ZFS Warning Since Upgrade to 10.0 >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? That depends on your disks, as native 4k drivers when you send a 512 write it has to perform a COW operation. The only real way to tell is to compare the two in a test with your setup. > 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. The issue was always there, its just ZFS now reports the issue. > 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. Impossible to say, you could test on a smaller install if you want to be sure. Regards Steve