From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Sun Feb 7 18:12:03 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@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 073AF53350A for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 18:12:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from pyroxene2a.sentex.ca (pyroxene19.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:3::19]) (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-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "pyroxene.sentex.ca", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DYcgP4kqNz4tbv for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 18:12:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:66:5032:f0d4:21ac] ([IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:66:5032:f0d4:21ac]) by pyroxene2a.sentex.ca (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 117IC0iw048478 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Feb 2021 13:12:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Subject: Re: Tuning and monitoring write intensive server To: Walter von Entferndt , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <2002412.uJW0cDvVUg@t450s.local.lan> From: mike tancsa Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 13:12:00 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2002412.uJW0cDvVUg@t450s.local.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DYcgP4kqNz4tbv X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mike@sentex.net designates 2607:f3e0:0:3::19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mike@sentex.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.00 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[mike]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f3e0::/32]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HFILTER_HELO_IP_A(1.00)[pyroxene2a.sentex.ca]; HFILTER_HELO_NORES_A_OR_MX(0.30)[pyroxene2a.sentex.ca]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[sentex.net]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[2607:f3e0:0:3::19:from:127.0.2.255]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[2607:f3e0:0:3::19:from]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11647, ipnet:2607:f3e0::/32, country:CA]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-performance] X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 18:12:03 -0000 On 2/7/2021 10:50 AM, Walter von Entferndt wrote: > > - Inserting an I/O scheduler might improve performance, too (gsched(8)). > Yes, UFS is likely faster than ZFS on such a setup, but ZFS offers many > advantages in terms of administration, fault tolerance & reliability. Especially if the data is compressible, zfs can be a big win.     --Mike