From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Sat May 30 21:30:00 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EA62F7A14 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=tAPM=7M=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ZF2b5Hc5z3TJf for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:29:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=tAPM=7M=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075CA28416; Sat, 30 May 2020 23:29:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-62-24-92-232.net.upcbroadband.cz [62.24.92.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D585528423; Sat, 30 May 2020 23:29:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: ZFS on FreeBSD 11.3 slower than 10.4 To: Ronald Klop , "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" References: <1ff455a5-d111-86fa-ceb1-1021b6d9a5b6@quip.cz> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <8c64cc48-7d79-7591-8bb5-67f3127463b7@quip.cz> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 23:29:48 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49ZF2b5Hc5z3TJf X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of SRS0=tAPM=7M=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz has no SPF policy when checking 94.124.105.4) smtp.mailfrom=SRS0=tAPM=7M=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.07 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.74)[-0.742]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[quip.cz]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.05)[-0.052]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.48)[-0.476]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=tAPM=7M=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42000, ipnet:94.124.104.0/21, country:CZ]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[000.fbsd@quip.cz, SRS0=tAPM=7M=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 21:30:00 -0000 On 2020-05-30 22:10, Ronald Klop wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2020 21:44:03 +0200, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> > wrote: > >> I upgraded my old desktop computer few month ago from old 10.4 based >> PC-BSD to stock FreeBSD 11.3. It uses single 2TB HDD 7200rpm. >> My problem is that upgraded version is really slow and some desktop >> applications are very lagging (playing multimedia is interrupted for a >> fraction of seconds) when there is heavy filesystem activity. >> >> I am using zfsnap2 for taking snapshots periodically and when there is >> enough snapshots zfs destroy is called. In this time the user >> experience is terrible. Starting new application like browser or even >> something much smaller takes minutes. The old version based on FreeBSD >> 10.4 behaves much better. I used the old version for years and never >> have problems with interrupted multimedia playback. >> >> Are there some sysctls to tune to get better desktop interactivity in >> heavy filesystem operations like zfs destroy, pkg check or other >> "find" periodic scripts? > How full is the disk? ZFS has poor performance if the disk becomes full. > What is in /etc/sysctl.conf and /boot/loader.conf? > And did you try to boot 12.1 and did it have the same behavious? It is currently 77% full. But it is the same pool with the same capacity as with 10.4. I didn't try 12.1, I need to stay on 11.3 for now. ## loader.conf nvidia_load="YES" drm_load="YES" drm2_load="YES" iicbus_load="YES" vboxdrv_load="YES" crypto_load="YES" aesni_load="YES" geom_eli_load="YES" vfs.zfs.arc_max="1024M" zfs_load="YES" iicbus_load="YES" ## sysctl.conf kern.coredump=0 kern.maxfiles=49312 vfs.usermount=1 security.jail.allow_raw_sockets=1 security.jail.sysvipc_allowed=1 security.jail.mount_allowed=1 security.jail.chflags_allowed=1 hw.syscons.bell=0 kern.sched.preempt_thresh=224 kern.ipc.shm_allow_removed=1 kern.shutdown.poweroff_delay=500 kern.bootfile=/boot/kernel/kernel hw.usb.no_shutdown_wait=1 hw.snd.default_unit=3 kern.sched.interact=10 vfs.aio.max_aio_per_proc=256 vfs.aio.max_aio_queue=8192 vfs.aio.max_aio_queue_per_proc=1024 vfs.aio.max_buf_aio=64 net.local.stream.recvspace=65536 net.local.stream.sendspace=65536 loader.conf and sysctl.conf are the same for 10.4 and 11.3 but 11.3 is much much slower when it comes to heavy IO like "find" daily periodic scripts, zfs destroy, starting new applications etc. Kind regards Miroslav Lachman