Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:48:05 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? Message-ID: <4C9106D5.3000100@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <B50B9D40146F44E688271D34346D4AF9@multiplay.co.uk> References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><AANLkTikNhsj5myhQCoPaNytUbpHtox1vg9AZm1N-OcMO@mail.gmail.com><4C85E91E.1010602@icyb.net.ua><4C873914.40404@freebsd.org><20100908084855.GF2465@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua><4C874F00.3050605@freebsd.org><A6D7E134B24F42E395C30A375A6B50AF@multiplay.co.uk><4C8D087B.5040404@freebsd.org><03537796FAB54E02959E2D64FC83004F@multiplay.co.uk><4C8D280F.3040803@freebsd.org><3FBF66BF11AA4CBBA6124CA435A4A31B@multiplay.co.uk><4C8E4212.30000@freebsd.org> <B98EBECBD399417CA5390C20627384B1@multiplay.co.uk> <D79F15FEB5794315BD8668E40B414BF0@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90B4C8.90203@freebsd.org> <6DFACB27CA8A4A22898BC81E55C4FD36@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90D3A1.7030008@freebsd.org> <0B1A90A08DFE4ADA9540F9F3846FDF38@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90EDB8.3040709@freebsd.org> <B50B9D40146F44E688271D34346D4AF9@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 15/09/2010 20:38 Steven Hartland said the following: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" <avg@freebsd.org> > To: "Steven Hartland" <killing@multiplay.co.uk> > Cc: <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; "Pawel Jakub Dawidek" <pjd@freebsd.org>; "jhell" > <jhell@DataIX.net> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? > > >> on 15/09/2010 18:04 Steven Hartland said the following: >>> Hmm, so taking a different track on the issue is the a way to make sendfile use >>> data >>> directly from ARC instead of having to copy it first? >> >> Or even try the opposite, if your version of ZFS permits it. >> You can set primarycache=metadata on the filesystem where you have the data that >> you serve via sendfile. With that setting it shouldn't get cached in ARC, but it >> should be still cached in VM cache, so you should get UFS-like behavior. >> >> Will you test it? :) > > Interesting, the same for secondarycache? Do you have it (L2ARC) ? Anyways, L2ARC is not in RAM. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9106D5.3000100>