From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 6 20:08:28 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCEC1065697 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:08:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mloftis@wgops.com) Received: from juggler.wgops.com (juggler.wgops.com [204.11.247.41]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520248FC20 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:08:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by juggler.wgops.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 4E493A8110; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:53:17 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on juggler.wgops.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER autolearn=no version=3.2.5 Received: from [192.168.1.44] (host-72-174-39-176.msl-mt.client.bresnan.net [72.174.39.176]) by juggler.wgops.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82975A8070 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:53:15 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:53:17 -0700 From: Michael Loftis To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <5275583A0E66749DA096A22F@[192.168.1.44]> In-Reply-To: References: <772532900-1257123963-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1402739480-@bda715.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <4AEEBD4B.1050407@quip.cz> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.2 at juggler X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: Performance issues with 8.0 ZFS and sendfile/lighttpd X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:08:28 -0000 --On Monday, November 02, 2009 12:55 PM +0100 Ivan Voras wrote: > Do you have actual disk IO or is the vast majority of your data served > from the caches? (actually - the same question to the OP) That's the problem 64GB of RAM and ZFS doesn't seem to use any cache. It also seems to not be realizing when multiple reads are on the same block (same issue sorta) and dispatches the same I/O request.