From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 11 16:45:55 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05614DD
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:45:55 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from tevans.uk@googlemail.com)
Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com (mail-qa0-f50.google.com
 [209.85.216.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D24167C
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:45:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id cr7so1635642qab.2
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=0zbNhYGmEjIOMAgD/W0O9f2BsCyy2QOMeZzmK8Sv+JI=;
 b=SeFxlhfo5V1zs+kU36ZfKCGPRJCqlr42Mk7nSDiZBDAryvvSPbyUV+VrE8uGdx5g6Z
 4LlTi6zN9yZJN/ret1IDq+QYLFJaf1fIAN8gaqfX/dCwKZE+f+LZ+GTcC0McoL6nJU1P
 PGrPQgHClpQA0SmNbbrQiTs/YG9FyITL1Wpo6PAREhmeGjaKBWg29lydmwfic45F99Qh
 JU+lXn56wyhTs6oyhdGAaz0ikBMwUs/yrfjadcd3svKqgX2CU0wAzrC98Fs9u1VZLS1v
 w67SS6Dk10+9kBiHVQuakFgY0rV46wOcaYjYBLUJJ7eqd44j0ID64EnmXcEgv+zMJYr+
 YOZA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.78.97 with SMTP id j33mr14872048qck.107.1357922749600;
 Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.48.168 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1357915426.16602.YahooMailClassic@web190801.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
References: <1357915426.16602.YahooMailClassic@web190801.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:45:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFHbX1Jrn+CE+QJFQs8i7Y4x55h2OqO-iJr3wK1bRmNXaEn+KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ZFS sub-optimal performance with default setting
From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com>
To: Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt@yahoo.com.hk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:45:55 -0000

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt@yahoo.com.hk> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> To make it simple, I have setup in this setting:
>
> Host: Intel dual core 3Ghz CPU, RHEL 6.3 x64, RAM 8GB
>
> Freebsd 9.1 -i386 VM with these setting:
> CPU: One
> Memory: 2GB
> 5GB for OS (da1)
> 5GB for ZFS (da2), no separate ZIL
>

This is ... tight! I concur with Adam, ZFS may be of little use in
this scenario. It is not so much lack of ZIL, but your pool is made up
of part of a virtualized shared resource. If you do not have a ZIL,
then synch writes are constrained by the speed of your slowest/only
disk, and I think you are at its limit.

> Installed software:
> Postgresql 9.2.2 (compile from ports) /usr/local/pgsql is a ZFS dataset
> OTRS 3.1.6 (compile from ports)
> Apache 2 install from packages
>
> zfs/postgresql/otrs/apache is in default setting, except I have turned off atime in ZFS.
>
> I have run OTRS benchmark twice, below is the result:
> Insert Time:     10000     12 s :-(     Should not take more than 5's on an average system.
> Update Time:     10000     7 s     Ok
>
> Select Time:     10000     3 s :-)     Looks fine!
> Delete Time:     10000     2 s :-)     Looks fine!
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick
>

Does performance significantly increase if you use UFS instead?

Cheers

Tom