From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 16:11:53 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D767C4B2 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cu01176b.smtpx.saremail.com (cu01176b.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.151.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556071ED8 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:11:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.2.2] (izaro.sarenet.es [192.148.167.11]) by proxypop04.sare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF1239DC926; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 18:11:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Samsung 840 Pro SSD and quirks Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Borja Marcos X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 18:11:49 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: "Steven Hartland" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: FreeBSD-scsi X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:11:54 -0000 On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: > We saw a noticable performance increase on 4k on our 8TB 840 > array but I too couldn't find any concrete information either. >=20 > If anyone has this info and can confirm either way that would > be great. I don=B4t have actual numbers, just recalling that I tried and I didn't = find significant differences using bonnie++ on a ZFS pool. And I recall that according to the kstats.sysctl variables, trim was indeed = working. Just in case I am repeating the tests right now. I still have the = pre-quirks kernel around and I have a pool defined with the default 512 = byte blocks. Version 1.97 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- = --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- = --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP = /sec %CP elibm 96G 123 99 670496 97 310330 63 303 99 818483 56 = 6281 165 Latency 93190us 20227us 448ms 41198us 454ms = 26375us Version 1.97 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random = Create-------- elibm -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- = -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP = /sec %CP 16 25723 98 +++++ +++ 24559 98 12694 99 31135 100 = 4810 99 Latency 15192us 97us 130us 23708us 355us = 1199us = 1.97,1.97,elibm,1,1409588162,96G,,123,99,670496,97,310330,63,303,99,818483= ,56,6281,165,16,,,,,25723,98,+++++,+++,24559,98,12694,99,31135,100,4810,99= ,93190us,20227us,448ms,41198us,454ms,26375us,15192us,97us,130us,23708us,35= 5us,1199us After a reboot, destroyng and recreating the pool, Version 1.97 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- = --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- = --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP = /sec %CP elibm 96G 128 99 675094 98 323692 67 303 99 862380 58 = 9530 189 Latency 64726us 48676us 389ms 36398us 505ms = 15594us Version 1.97 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random = Create-------- elibm -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- = -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP = /sec %CP 16 24857 97 +++++ +++ 20422 98 21836 98 +++++ +++ = 17786 97 Latency 15422us 102us 785us 24590us 125us = 170us = 1.97,1.97,elibm,1,1409588443,96G,,128,99,675094,98,323692,67,303,99,862380= ,58,9530,189,16,,,,,24857,97,+++++,+++,20422,98,21836,98,+++++,+++,17786,9= 7,64726us,48676us,389ms,36398us,505ms,15594us,15422us,102us,785us,24590us,= 125us,170us The results seem to be more or less similar. I have checked kstats.zfs = and in both cases trim was working. The count of unsupported trims was 0 = while success and bytes grew as they should. What am I missing? Note that I am not against preemptive 4K quirk = strikes :) I am comparing with multiple concurrent bonnies just in case = or, what did you use to do the test? Thanks! Borja.