From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 15 17:48:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FF61065695 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:48:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC06E8FC22 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA13650; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:48:05 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4C9106D5.3000100@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:48:05 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100909 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><4C85E91E.1010602@icyb.net.ua><4C873914.40404@freebsd.org><20100908084855.GF2465@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua><4C874F00.3050605@freebsd.org><4C8D087B.5040404@freebsd.org><03537796FAB54E02959E2D64FC83004F@multiplay.co.uk><4C8D280F.3040803@freebsd.org><3FBF66BF11AA4CBBA6124CA435A4A31B@multiplay.co.uk><4C8E4212.30000@freebsd.org> <4C90B4C8.90203@freebsd.org> <6DFACB27CA8A4A22898BC81E55C4FD36@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90D3A1.7030008@freebsd.org> <0B1A90A08DFE4ADA9540F9F3846FDF38@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90EDB8.3040709@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:48:09 -0000 on 15/09/2010 20:38 Steven Hartland said the following: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" > To: "Steven Hartland" > Cc: ; "Pawel Jakub Dawidek" ; "jhell" > > 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