From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 4 15:29:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B5553F for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:29:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25D28F2 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id ds1so276131wgb.4 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:29:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=vVwYOxPws+T8U3aLSU9ZtmmRNqNtCHyITU3zKs+G4F4=; b=MF6kh8xHTBbluIpv6SJ4vZa3eMsPTaAYZoUu/cOmOfpeGvzaSgEYAeeHotr6iegrIL xKWhcHrncX/rDnxo+AWkFYZPeazqJCdEYDBAkIT9sB2qP7IsX87SohW8Z4rkBeDFqdcK oNVkZzKky0OZFULHNJnAxLd25kd+rJqMCFcgObLiW5UiSyxUEIR1HBuoa8ge2JG5Z/Fq cjHsa+/WpW+J17GAtsvnqSwOepSKCJIZImhpW1YgB5tksOcT2MNqiVj02apei+oaVfLB a/Fwc2SCfSSuzCyz5yAb8coXdCfXrjHWakOrKdyvDhTqkZOH84YkApvlkhv2q7sw84fw adEg== X-Received: by 10.194.177.199 with SMTP id cs7mr84524755wjc.41.1357313057223; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.75.0.66] ([83.167.62.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p3sm94309293wic.8.2013.01.04.07.24.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:24:16 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: ZFS/RAIDZ and SAMBA: abyssimal performance From: Fleuriot Damien In-Reply-To: <50E6F2FC.3060903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 16:24:20 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <23BF8538-FB5A-4432-A4E1-721B5F566CA2@my.gd> References: <50E6DE91.7010404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <1ADC2ECB-70FF-4DDD-9D62-16E2EEECDD8B@my.gd> <50E6F2FC.3060903@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: O. Hartmann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlIj9sXIYbOR5/Eqyplbo4ze8YqaOaSyuBIBp1eKaHFpnO3NOeHC7UDuH8zx+A91BlJVXaU Cc: Garrett Cooper , Current FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:29:36 -0000 On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:19 PM, O. Hartmann = wrote: > Am 01/04/13 15:45, schrieb Garrett Cooper: >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: >>=20 >> ... >>=20 >>> And this is under [global] in /usr/local/etc/smb.conf: >>> min receivefile size =3D 16384 >>> aio read size =3D 16384 >>> aio write size =3D 16384 >>> aio write behind =3D yes >>=20 >> These are still pretty low, depending on what your networking/disk >> setup is like; my important performance settings are: >>=20 >> socket options =3D SO_RCVBUF=3D64240 SO_SNDBUF=3D64240 = TCP_NODELAY >> IPTOS_LOWDELAY IPTOS_THROUGHPUT >> write cache size =3D 65536 >> aio read size =3D 65536 >> aio write size =3D 65536 >> directory name cache size =3D 0 >>=20 >> HTH, >> -Garrett > Well, now I have peak values ~ 120 MB/s when copying. I applied = Fleuriot > Damien's values to /boot/loader.conf and yours to the smb.conf. > Somewhere in the handbook this should be documented! it is to much > efford to get SAMBA working properly with ZFS, if the tricks and > problems are so widespread over several architectural aspects of the = system. >=20 > It could save a lot of time for adminsitartors and those which try > FreeBSD as a serving system instead of Linux. >=20 > Just for the record. I feel a bit confused about all the tricks and > tweak now "published" for ZFS, its magic L2ARC, the kernel_vmem = wizzardy > thingis. The ZFS Wiki seems to be a bit outdated and confusing, it = would > be a great deal if all these things could be lined up a s a primer = with > a bit more explanations than "put this number there". >=20 > And by the way, it is like changing from hell to heaven having now ~ = 100 > MB/s throughput compared to ~1/500! >=20 > Thanks a lot, > Oliver >=20 The problem, Oliver, is that these values are system dependant. Notice how Garret replied that these values are a bit low (and they = might be indeed !). However, while you have 16gb RAM, my ZFS NAS only has 4gb. Basically and as Jeremy Chadwick pointed out at the time, there is no = one set of correct values for 100% of the population. One has to adjust them step by step and decide what is best for them. @garret: I'll try with the values you posted, although I get = 90-120mbytes/s most of the time so I pretty much saturate my 1gbs link.