From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 1 19:47:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5D5F12 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.egr.msu.edu (dauterive.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.168]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965992A7A for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dauterive (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.egr.msu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3A526830 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 15:40:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at egr.msu.edu Received: from mail.egr.msu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by dauterive (dauterive.egr.msu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id maltBJQF6pm1 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 15:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EGR authenticated sender Message-ID: <538B81B0.7030903@egr.msu.edu> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:40:32 -0400 From: Adam McDougall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fdisk(8) vs gpart(8), and gnop References: <20140601004242.GA97224@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <3D6974D83AE9495E890D9F3CA654FA94@multiplay.co.uk> <538B4CEF.2030801@freebsd.org> <1DB2D63312CE439A96B23EAADFA9436E@multiplay.co.uk> <538B4FD7.4090000@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <538B4FD7.4090000@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:47:02 -0000 On 06/01/2014 12:07, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 06/01/14 09:00, Steven Hartland wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Whitehorn" >> >> To: ; >> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 4:55 PM >> Subject: Re: fdisk(8) vs gpart(8), and gnop >> >> >>> On 06/01/14 08:52, Steven Hartland wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Felder" >>>> >>>>> On May 31, 2014, at 20:57, Freddie Cash wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's a sysctl where you can set the minimum ashift for zfs. >>>>>> Then you >>>>>> never need to use gnop. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe it's part of 10.0? The new sysctl is not yet part of a release: 11 r264850 Thu Apr 24 10 r266122 Thu May 15 9 r266123 Thu May 15 >>>>> >>>>> I've not seen this yet. What we need is to port the ability to set >>>>> ashift at pool creation time: >>>>> >>>>> $ zpool create -o ashift=12 tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4 >>>>> >>>>> I believe the Linux zfs port has this functionality now, but we >>>>> still do not. >>>> >>>> We don't have that direct option yet but you can achieve the >>>> same thing by setting: vfs.zfs.min_auto_ashift=12 >>>> >>> Does anyone have any objections to me changing this default, right >>> now, today? >>> -Nathan >> >> I think you will get some objections to that, as it can have quite an >> impact >> on the performance for disks which are 512, due to the increased >> overhead of >> transfering 4k when only 512 is really required. This has a more dramatic >> impact on RAIDZx due too. Another drawback is space consumption. Using 4k when not needed consumes a considerable amount of extra space. The loss can be on the order of terabytes when using many 2TB drives in a raidz for example. >> >> Personally we run a custom kernel on our machines which has just this >> change >> in it to ensure capability with future disks, so I can confirm it does >> indeed >> have the desired effect :) > > So the discussion here is related to what to do about the installer. The > current ZFS component unconditionally creates gnops all over the place The 10.0-RELEASE installer ZFS configuration defaults to gnop but easily allows the user to opt out with the "Force 4K Sectors" menu option. I think we should keep that end result with the opt-out (replace opt-in gnop with opt-out sysctl?) and reflect that default in the installed kernel since it can be overridden easily. > to set ashift to 4k. That's across the board worse: it has exactly the > performance impact of changing the default of this sysctl (whatever that > is), it can't easily be overridden (which the sysctl can), and it's a > horrible hack to boot. There are a few options: > > 1. Change the default of vfs.zfs.min_auto_ashift > 2. Have the same effect but in a vastly worse way by adjusting the > installer to create gnops > 3. Have ZFS choose by itself and decide to do that permanently. > > Our ATA code is good about reporting block sizes now, so (3) isn't a big > issue except for the mixed-pool case, which is a huge PITA. > > We need to choose one of these. I favor (1). > -Nathan > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"