From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Wed Apr 4 17:04:42 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D26F9D3B8 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:04:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agapon@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F76862C8 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:04:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agapon@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id x82so44409105wmg.1 for ; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 10:04:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:autocrypt :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v4tkc+vD8QdEJe7wohDTmhUKWaExzuB1XoMovjfCSCo=; b=OY07I/cV9Si4KSXtGkNObNfHntMdcQrdOQ1yEhYHSreSLlAgtf38+fPvuUqCj7GV6r 41GqYDjeRXvN2M+xH+z2wv7gAyWkPwOX0V0g3+B1U02fJhWgZ1h+hjdrA2CnouxaBD/n RBypUwIb1mqZcMwBmRcrofaXOI7Dz36J72KWCls2vvwySyThBZcr+cB6ho5M+F4ZNHcq MSNEyfJU3DCG+6RuHbkAyjQAi8ncVKxPEewzSdSpUgkslCWRBf/4kWlIog3WhHvGcjHv 5mNHDHeqPq30Ol+6e7zTVZYTSHwJ0JrbVu01wFmj8HOxDdPq1/MuOrgE7uQybP+yyEpY tJuw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tChQ4FBluE/4guMPKC/5AYVML8fhHgWj5vq0oDepFjVtqpX1h8C yFcaOBVVdUA85D/B6iyQoHae+3mm X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+ka7R6J7ePJeOFNYVGX9MY7cJrCIYiuGb4rS6FFbntlf0jXO1Ku9LxXA9dA7g3PxSc5aK1Ng== X-Received: by 10.46.135.6 with SMTP id m6mr11676049lji.124.1522861474395; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 10:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.88] (east.meadow.volia.net. [93.72.151.96]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id o26sm942974ljc.62.2018.04.04.10.04.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Apr 2018 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: ZFS dedup write pathway - possible inefficiency or..? To: Stilez Stilezy Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <14c857cc-463f-a56e-bcf6-c0702da6d3bc@FreeBSD.org> From: Andriy Gapon Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Autocrypt: addr=avg@FreeBSD.org; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFm4LIgBEADNB/3lT7f15UKeQ52xCFQx/GqHkSxEdVyLFZTmY3KyNPQGBtyvVyBfprJ7 mAeXZWfhat6cKNRAGZcL5EmewdQuUfQfBdYmKjbw3a9GFDsDNuhDA2QwFt8BmkiVMRYyvI7l N0eVzszWCUgdc3qqM6qqcgBaqsVmJluwpvwp4ZBXmch5BgDDDb1MPO8AZ2QZfIQmplkj8Y6Z AiNMknkmgaekIINSJX8IzRzKD5WwMsin70psE8dpL/iBsA2cpJGzWMObVTtCxeDKlBCNqM1i gTXta1ukdUT7JgLEFZk9ceYQQMJJtUwzWu1UHfZn0Fs29HTqawfWPSZVbulbrnu5q55R4PlQ /xURkWQUTyDpqUvb4JK371zhepXiXDwrrpnyyZABm3SFLkk2bHlheeKU6Yql4pcmSVym1AS4 dV8y0oHAfdlSCF6tpOPf2+K9nW1CFA8b/tw4oJBTtfZ1kxXOMdyZU5fiG7xb1qDgpQKgHUX8 7Rd2T1UVLVeuhYlXNw2F+a2ucY+cMoqz3LtpksUiBppJhw099gEXehcN2JbUZ2TueJdt1FdS ztnZmsHUXLxrRBtGwqnFL7GSd6snpGIKuuL305iaOGODbb9c7ne1JqBbkw1wh8ci6vvwGlzx rexzimRaBzJxlkjNfMx8WpCvYebGMydNoeEtkWldtjTNVsUAtQARAQABzR5BbmRyaXkgR2Fw b24gPGF2Z0BGcmVlQlNELm9yZz7CwZQEEwEIAD4WIQS+LEO7ngQnXA4Bjr538m7TUc1yjwUC WbgsiAIbIwUJBaOagAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRB38m7TUc1yj+JAEACV l9AK/nOWAt/9cufV2fRj0hdOqB1aCshtSrwHk/exXsDa4/FkmegxXQGY+3GWX3deIyesbVRL rYdtdK0dqJyT1SBqXK1h3/at9rxr9GQA6KWOxTjUFURsU7ok/6SIlm8uLRPNKO+yq0GDjgaO LzN+xykuBA0FlhQAXJnpZLcVfPJdWv7sSHGedL5ln8P8rxR+XnmsA5TUaaPcbhTB+mG+iKFj GghASDSfGqLWFPBlX/fpXikBDZ1gvOr8nyMY9nXhgfXpq3B6QCRYKPy58ChrZ5weeJZ29b7/ QdEO8NFNWHjSD9meiLdWQaqo9Y7uUxN3wySc/YUZxtS0bhAd8zJdNPsJYG8sXgKjeBQMVGuT eCAJFEYJqbwWvIXMfVWop4+O4xB+z2YE3jAbG/9tB/GSnQdVSj3G8MS80iLS58frnt+RSEw/ psahrfh0dh6SFHttE049xYiC+cM8J27Aaf0i9RflyITq57NuJm+AHJoU9SQUkIF0nc6lfA+o JRiyRlHZHKoRQkIg4aiKaZSWjQYRl5Txl0IZUP1dSWMX4s3XTMurC/pnja45dge/4ESOtJ9R 8XuIWg45Oq6MeIWdjKddGhRj3OohsltKgkEU3eLKYtB6qRTQypHHUawCXz88uYt5e3w4V16H lCpSTZV/EVHnNe45FVBlvK7k7HFfDDkryM7BTQRZuCyIARAAlq0slcsVboY/+IUJdcbEiJRW be9HKVz4SUchq0z9MZPX/0dcnvz/gkyYA+OuM78dNS7Mbby5dTvOqfpLJfCuhaNYOhlE0wY+ 1T6Tf1f4c/uA3U/YiadukQ3+6TJuYGAdRZD5EqYFIkreARTVWg87N9g0fT9BEqLw9lJtEGDY EWUE7L++B8o4uu3LQFEYxcrb4K/WKmgtmFcm77s0IKDrfcX4doV92QTIpLiRxcOmCC/OCYuO jB1oaaqXQzZrCutXRK0L5XN1Y1PYjIrEzHMIXmCDlLYnpFkK+itlXwlE2ZQxkfMruCWdQXye syl2fynAe8hvp7Mms9qU2r2K9EcJiR5N1t1C2/kTKNUhcRv7Yd/vwusK7BqJbhlng5ZgRx0m WxdntU/JLEntz3QBsBsWM9Y9wf2V4tLv6/DuDBta781RsCB/UrU2zNuOEkSixlUiHxw1dccI 6CVlaWkkJBxmHX22GdDFrcjvwMNIbbyfQLuBq6IOh8nvu9vuItup7qemDG3Ms6TVwA7BD3j+ 3fGprtyW8Fd/RR2bW2+LWkMrqHffAr6Y6V3h5kd2G9Q8ZWpEJk+LG6Mk3fhZhmCnHhDu6CwN MeUvxXDVO+fqc3JjFm5OxhmfVeJKrbCEUJyM8ESWLoNHLqjywdZga4Q7P12g8DUQ1mRxYg/L HgZY3zfKOqcAEQEAAcLBfAQYAQgAJhYhBL4sQ7ueBCdcDgGOvnfybtNRzXKPBQJZuCyIAhsM BQkFo5qAAAoJEHfybtNRzXKPBVwQAKfFy9P7N3OsLDMB56A4Kf+ZT+d5cIx0Yiaf4n6w7m3i ImHHHk9FIetI4Xe54a2IXh4Bq5UkAGY0667eIs+Z1Ea6I2i27Sdo7DxGwq09Qnm/Y65ADvXs 3aBvokCcm7FsM1wky395m8xUos1681oV5oxgqeRI8/76qy0hD9WR65UW+HQgZRIcIjSel9vR XDaD2HLGPTTGr7u4v00UeTMs6qvPsa2PJagogrKY8RXdFtXvweQFz78NbXhluwix2Tb9ETPk LIpDrtzV73CaE2aqBG/KrboXT2C67BgFtnk7T7Y7iKq4/XvEdDWscz2wws91BOXuMMd4c/c4 OmGW9m3RBLufFrOag1q5yUS9QbFfyqL6dftJP3Zq/xe+mr7sbWbhPVCQFrH3r26mpmy841ym dwQnNcsbIGiBASBSKksOvIDYKa2Wy8htPmWFTEOPRpFXdGQ27awcjjnB42nngyCK5ukZDHi6 w0qK5DNQQCkiweevCIC6wc3p67jl1EMFY5+z+zdTPb3h7LeVnGqW0qBQl99vVFgzLxchKcl0 R/paSFgwqXCZhAKMuUHncJuynDOP7z5LirUeFI8qsBAJi1rXpQoLJTVcW72swZ42IdPiboqx NbTMiNOiE36GqMcTPfKylCbF45JNX4nF9ElM0E+Y8gi4cizJYBRr2FBJgay0b9Cp Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:04:32 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:04:42 -0000 On 02/04/2018 21:30, Stilez Stilezy wrote: > Thanks on that tip, Andriy, > > I don't have the knowledge to tell if that's the first of the 2 issues I'm > seeing.  It could be. What exactly is that bug describing and what behaviour > would it create? Sub-optimal performance for ZFS write throughput (and latency) when dedup is enabled and you are trying to write as fast as you can. > Assuming it's the same - > > 1) Are there any known workarounds or sysctls that help to reduce the issue? I don't know of any. > 2) Are there any easy diagnostic tests I can easily do, to confirm if this is > the same behaviour as that bug?  Nobody else uses the test system, so I can > change any sysctls to sane or extreme values for testing, or create large txg's > and spread out reads and writes to see what's happening and what coincides with > what. We used DTrace to observe internal ZFS behavior. I do not have any simple recipes. > On 2 April 2018 at 18:47, Andriy Gapon > wrote: > > On 02/04/2018 16:36, Stilez Stilezy wrote: > > The first issue is specific to the > > dedup write pathway.   I've tested locally to a point where it seems it's > > not due to inadequate hardware and it's very consistent and specific, even > > on idle conditions/minimal load.  I'm wondering whether there's a code > > bottleneck specifically affecting just the dedup write pathway. > > I think that this might be https://www.illumos.org/issues/8353 > > > -- > Andriy Gapon > > -- Andriy Gapon