From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Wed Oct 21 01:52:53 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DB8A19E59 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jason@broken.net) Received: from broken.net (broken.net [198.134.7.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DCA2B6 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:52:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jason@broken.net) Received: from [192.168.253.69] (c-73-158-46-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.158.46.10]) by broken.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 823CFDA82; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [zfs] RE: granularity of performance penalty from resilvering To: zfs@lists.illumos.org, "zfs-discuss@list.zfsonlinux.org" , developer , freebsd-fs , zfs-discuss , "developer@lists.illumos.org" References: <5626E4B3.2020904@broken.net> From: Jason Matthews Message-ID: <5626EFF1.9020208@broken.net> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:52:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:52:53 -0000 That is the only way to fly... j. On 10/20/2015 6:35 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > > Yeah. I want to go the other way. Plus, these settings are only > applicable in illumos. > > Therefore I decide to give up the hybrid( ssd+sata) solution to > underpin applications which need decent RAS. > > I am gonna go all-flash array. > > Thanks. > > Fred > > *From:*Jason Matthews [mailto:jason@broken.net] > *Sent:* 星期三, 十月21, 2015 9:05 > *To:* zfs@lists.illumos.org; Fred Liu; > zfs-discuss@list.zfsonlinux.org; developer; freebsd-fs; zfs-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [zfs] RE: granularity of performance penalty from > resilvering > > > > you could look at these tunables (not the settings themselves)... > > these settings actually make resilvers have a higher priority. You > obviously would want to go the other way. > > j. > > |* Prioritize resilvering by setting the delay to zero| > |set zfs:zfs_resilver_delay = 0 | > > * Prioritize scrubs by setting the delay to zero > set zfs:zfs_scrub_delay = 0 > > |* resilver for five seconds per TXG| > |set zfs:zfs_resilver_min_time_ms = 5000| > > > |echo zfs_resilver_delay/w0 | mdb -kw| > |echo zfs_scrub_delay/w0 |mdb -kw| > |echo zfs_top_maxinflight/w7f |mdb -kw| > |echo zfs_resilver_min_time_ms/w1388 |mdb -kw| > > On 10/19/2015 11:49 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > > Yes, “zpool scrub –s” can stop the resilvering. > > *From:*Fred Liu > *Sent:* 星 期二, 十月20, 2015 12:15 > *To:* 'zfs-discuss@list.zfsonlinux.org > '; developer; illumos-zfs; > freebsd-fs; zfs-discuss > *Subject:* granularity of performance penalty from resilvering > > Sorry if is a duplicate thread. > > The last suffering has been lasted for two weeks for we replaced a > 6TB HDD. > > There should be some IO throttle measure from ZFS software stack. > At least, we can try to stop resilvering like scrubbing > > if the realization is quiet complicated. > > Besides that, will nice zil/cache be relief? > > Thanks. > > Fred > > *illumos-zfs* | Archives > > > | Modify > > Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] >