Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:58:04 +0200 From: Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim@gmail.com> To: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Regarding regular zfs Message-ID: <CAFfb-houfsiGd_pv-e9hW3OOsNCOx=cF8rQkZVNtLpjtj=q7ig@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8B0FFF01-B8CC-41C0-B0A2-58046EA4E998@my.gd> References: <CAFfb-hpt4iKSb0S2fgQ16Hp51KLWJew1Se32yX1cUPYi6pp72g@mail.gmail.com> <8B0FFF01-B8CC-41C0-B0A2-58046EA4E998@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
zpool usage is 9% :) -- ---------------------- Joar Jegleim Homepage: http://cosmicb.no Linkedin: http://no.linkedin.com/in/joarjegleim fb: http://www.facebook.com/joar.jegleim AKA: CosmicB @Freenode ---------------------- On 5 April 2013 13:07, Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2013, at 12:17, Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi FreeBSD ! > > > > I've already sent this one to questions@freebsd.org, but realised this > list > > would be a better option. > > > > So I've got this setup where we have a storage server delivering about > > 2 million jpeg's as a backend for a website ( it's ~1TB of data) > > The storage server is running zfs and every 15 minutes it does a zfs > > send to a 'slave', and our proxy will fail over to the slave if the > > main storage server goes down . > > I've got this script that initially zfs send's a whole zfs volume, and > > for every send after that only sends the diff . So after the initial zfs > > send, the diff's usually take less than a minute to send over. > > > > I've had increasing problems on the 'slave', it seem to grind to a > > halt for anything between 5-20 seconds after every zfs receive . > Everything > > on the server halts / hangs completely. > > > > I've had a couple go's on trying to solve / figure out what's > > happening without luck, and this 3rd time I've invested even more time > > on the problem . > > > > To sum it up: > > -Server was initially on 8.2-RELEASE > > -I've set some sysctl variables such as: > > > > # 16GB arc_max ( server got 30GB of ram, but had a couple 'freeze' > > situations, suspect zfs.arc ate too much memory) > > vfs.zfs.arc_max=17179869184 > > > > # 8.2 default to 30 here, setting it to 5 which is default from 8.3 and > > onwards > > vfs.zfs.txg.timeout="5" > > > > # Set TXG write limit to a lower threshold. This helps "level out" > > # the throughput rate (see "zpool iostat"). A value of 256MB works well > > # for systems with 4 GB of RAM, while 1 GB works well for us w/ 8 GB on > > # disks which have 64 MB cache. <<BR>> > > # NOTE: in <v28, this tunable is called > 'vfs.zfs.txg.write_limit_override'. > > #vfs.zfs.txg.write_limit_override=1073741824 # for 8.2 > > vfs.zfs.write_limit_override=1073741824 # for 8.3 and above > > > > -I've implemented mbuffer for the zfs send / receive operations. With > > mbuffer the sync went a lot faster, but still got the same symptoms > > when the zfs receive is done, the hang / unresponsiveness returns for > > 5-20 seconds > > -I've upgraded to 8.3-RELEASE ( + zpool upgrade and zfs upgrade to > > V28), same symptoms > > -I've upgraded to 9.1-RELEASE, still same symptoms > > > > The period where the server is unresponsive after a zfs receive, I > > suspected it would correlate with the amount of data being sent, but > > even if there is only a couple MB's data the hang / unresponsiveness > > is still substantial . > > > > I suspect it may have something to do with the zfs volume being sent > > is mount'ed on the slave, and I'm also doing the backups from the > > slave, which means a lot of the time the backup server is rsyncing the > > zfs volume being updated. > > I've noticed that the unresponsiveness / hang situations occur while > > the backupserver is rsync'ing from the zfs volume being updated, when > > the backupserver is 'done' and nothing is working with files in the > > zfs volume being updated i hardly notice any of the symptoms (mabye > > just a minor lag for much less than a second, hardly noticeable) . > > > > So my question(s) to the list would be: > > In my setup have I taken the use case for zfs send / receive too far > > (?) as in, it's not meant for this kind of syncing and this often, so > > there's actually nothing 'wrong'. > > > > -- > > ---------------------- > > Joar Jegleim > > > > Quick and dirty reply, what's your pool usage % ? > > >75-80% an performance takes a dive. > > Let's just make sure you're not there yet. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFfb-houfsiGd_pv-e9hW3OOsNCOx=cF8rQkZVNtLpjtj=q7ig>