From nobody Wed Apr 6 15:30:49 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CF11A83BBB; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:30:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from egoitz@ramattack.net) Received: from cu1208c.smtpx.saremail.com (cu1208c.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.148.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KYT4C3mk8z3svy; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:30:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from egoitz@ramattack.net) Received: from www.saremail.com (unknown [194.30.0.183]) by sieve-smtp-backend02.sarenet.es (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6607560C676; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:30:49 +0200 (CEST) List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-performance List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_aa8d0836ba0370d8efdf8758a7e3ea30" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 17:30:49 +0200 From: egoitz@ramattack.net To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Freebsd performance Subject: Re: Desperate with 870 QVO and ZFS In-Reply-To: <0ef282aee34b441f1991334e2edbcaec@ramattack.net> References: <4e98275152e23141eae40dbe7ba5571f@ramattack.net> <665236B1-8F61-4B0E-BD9B-7B501B8BD617@ultra-secure.de> <0ef282aee34b441f1991334e2edbcaec@ramattack.net> Message-ID: <28e11d7ec0ac5dbea45f9f271fc28f06@ramattack.net> X-Sender: egoitz@ramattack.net User-Agent: Saremail webmail X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4KYT4C3mk8z3svy X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=ramattack.net; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of egoitz@ramattack.net designates 195.16.148.183 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=egoitz@ramattack.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.79 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:195.16.148.0/24]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[ramattack.net,reject]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs,freebsd-hackers,freebsd-performance]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3262, ipnet:195.16.128.0/19, country:ES]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --=_aa8d0836ba0370d8efdf8758a7e3ea30 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 One perhaps important note!! When this happens... almost all processes appear in top in the following state: txg state or txg-> bio.... perhaps should the the vfs.zfs.dirty_data_max, vfs.zfs.txg.timeout, vfs.zfs.vdev.async_write_active_max_dirty_percent be increased, decreased.... I'm afraid of doing some chage ana finally ending up with an inestable server.... I'm not an expert in handling these values.... Any recommendation?. Best regards, El 2022-04-06 16:36, egoitz@ramattack.net escribió: > ATENCION: Este correo se ha enviado desde fuera de la organización. No pinche en los enlaces ni abra los adjuntos a no ser que reconozca el remitente y sepa que el contenido es seguro. > > Hi Rainer! > > Thank you so much for your help :) :) > > Well I assume they are in a datacenter and should not be a power outage.... > > About dataset size... yes... our ones are big... they can be 3-4 TB easily each dataset..... > > We bought them, because as they are for mailboxes and mailboxes grow and grow.... for having space for hosting them... > > We knew they had some speed issues, but those speed issues, we thought (as Samsung explains in the QVO site) they started after exceeding the speeding buffer this disks have. We though that meanwhile you didn't exceed it's capacity (the capacity of the speeding buffer) no speed problem arises. Perhaps we were wrong?. > > Best regards, > > El 2022-04-06 14:56, Rainer Duffner escribió: > > Am 06.04.2022 um 13:15 schrieb egoitz@ramattack.net: > I don't really know if, perhaps the QVO technology could be the guilty here.... because... they say are desktop computers disks... but later. > > Yeah, they are. > > Most likely, they don't have some sort of super-cap. > > A power-failure might totally toast the filesystem. > > These disks are - IMO - designed to accelerate read-operations. Their sustained write-performance is usually mediocre, at best. > > They might work well for small data-sets - because that is really written to some cache and the firmware just claims it's „written", but once the data-set becomes big enough, they are about as fast as a fast SATA-disk. > > https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-970-evo-plus-ssd,5608.html --=_aa8d0836ba0370d8efdf8758a7e3ea30 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

One perhaps important note!!


When this happens... almost all processes appear in top in the following= state:


txg state or

txg->

bio....


perhaps should the the vfs.zfs.dirty_data_max, vfs.zfs.txg.timeout, vfs= =2Ezfs.vdev.async_write_active_max_dirty_percent be increased, decreased.= =2E.. I'm afraid of doing some chage ana finally ending up with an inestabl= e server.... I'm not an expert in handling these values....


Any recommendation?.


Best regards,

 


El 2022-04-06 16:36, egoitz@ramattack.net escribió:


ATENCION: Este correo se ha enviado = desde fuera de la organización. No pinche en los enlaces ni abra los= adjuntos a no ser que reconozca el remitente y sepa que el contenido es se= guro.

Hi Rainer!


Thank you so much for your help :) :)

Well I assume they are in a datacenter and should not be a power outage= =2E...

About dataset size... yes... our ones are big... they can be 3-4 TB easi= ly each dataset.....

We bought them, because as they are for mailboxes and mailboxes grow and= grow.... for having space for hosting them...

We knew they had some speed issues, but those speed issues, we thought (= as Samsung explains in the QVO site) they started after exceeding the speed= ing buffer this disks have. We though that meanwhile you didn't exceed it's= capacity (the capacity of the speeding buffer) no speed problem arises. Pe= rhaps we were wrong?.


Best regards,



El 2022-04-06 14:56, Rainer Duffner escribió:



Am 06.04.2022 um 13:15 schrieb egoitz@ramattack.net:

I don't really know if, perhaps the QVO technolo= gy could be the guilty here.... because... they say are desktop computers d= isks... but later.

 
Yeah, they are.
 
Most likely, they don't have some sort of super-cap.
 
A power-failure might totally toast the filesystem.
 
These disks are - IMO -  designed to accelerate read-operations= =2E Their sustained write-performance is usually mediocre, at best.
 
They might work well for small data-sets - because that is really writ= ten to some cache and the firmware just claims it's „written", but on= ce the data-set becomes big enough, they are about as fast as a fast SATA-d= isk.
 
 
 
 
--=_aa8d0836ba0370d8efdf8758a7e3ea30--