From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 10 17:27:32 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43627A6F for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B3016BE for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id up15so7574095pbc.20 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:27:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hMKHPa08zxZ/KBYAiglXLSHpP+kfNFonLvM1jNfDgBU=; b=QNJcpULM4JwUDISyF0z/OIrhaD+6RknxvfzwunqMlfO96DUfolf2ZwrOer/worxUcc sW+cajN82cXWo5mC/eLKuQ10hE0McW8TjtHTOrl/p/evi4iJkQClOnBB27lYHKGTSpnu OxRX4r0/tSPF0hXHpMIkb6spwdYVpeYjzdcwmZfYpWbckDWz2pY+rDpoSNsWcS0Hi871 Wb24xGVrWVWuBEajw3WO27sF/zhW/pN8bHVRvsp5Q/BRIELRPDQL+DDk3QgfzNdVZNSG NmWjA96CJ7qPreJZCB3+HvKp1uDln5Dn14hB5jMHgeS980NGc4lx9YSvP6jXuWjVib+b stJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.163.197 with SMTP id yk5mr41703778pbb.57.1394472451710; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.55.7 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:27:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <531DF0DD.8070809@netlabs.org> References: <531DF0DD.8070809@netlabs.org> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:27:31 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Reoccuring ZFS performance problems From: Adam Vande More To: Adrian Gschwend Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: freebsd-fs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:27:32 -0000 On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > First I thought disabling prefetch did solve the issue for a while. But > it looks like I was too optimistic with that one. However, ls feels > *much* faster when the system is happy since I disabled prefetch. > > I'm really totally lost on this one so I would appreciate hints about > how to debug that. > > I'm willing to test whatever it takes to figure out where this issue is. > Are you using a ZFS backed swap device? -- Adam