Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:09:39 +0100
From:      Daniel Nebdal <dnebdal@gmail.com>
To:        "O. Hartmann" <ohartmann@walstatt.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: ZFS RAIDZ1: resilvering at <17.3M/s => abyssal slow ...
Message-ID:  <CA%2Bt49PJuznLxGnLERwAhVW2CjETJYWO6rKcWo3qOo5bZLQkqYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171214124900.64211bd9@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de>
References:  <20171214124900.64211bd9@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, O. Hartmann <ohartmann@walstatt.org> wrot=
e:
> Hello out there,
>
> I had to replace a HDD on a RAIDZ1 pool comprised from 4 HDDs, each 3 TB =
(netto size of
> the pool is about 8-9 TB, the used amount is reported to be ~ 6TB).
>
> I just started the rebuild/resilvering process and watch the pool crwalin=
g at ~ 18 MB/s.
> At the moment, there is no load on the array, the host is a IvyBridge XEO=
N with 4 core/8
> threads and 3,4 GHz and 16 GB of RAM. The HDDs are attached to a on-board=
 SATA II (300
> MB/s max) Intel chip - this just for the record.
>
> Recently, I switch on the "sync" attribute on most of the defined pools's=
 zfs filesystems
> - I also use a SSD for ZIL/L2ARC caching, but it seems to be unused recen=
tly in FreeBSD
> CURRENT's ZFS - this from a observers perspective only.
>
> When scrubbing, I see recently also reduced performance on the pool, so I=
'm wondering
> about the low throughput at the very moment when resilvering is in progre=
ss.
>
> If the "perspective" of "zpool status" is correct, then I have to wait af=
ter two hours
> for another 100 hours - ~ 4 days? Ups ... I think there is something badl=
y misconfigured
> or missing.
>
> The pool is not "tuned" in any very sophisticated way, since I trust the =
kernels ability
> to scale automatically - if I'm not wrong for amd64 ...
>
> Are there any aspects to look at?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Oliver
>
> --
> O. Hartmann
>
> Ich widerspreche der Nutzung oder =C3=9Cbermittlung meiner Daten f=C3=BCr
> Werbezwecke oder f=C3=BCr die Markt- oder Meinungsforschung (=C2=A7 28 Ab=
s. 4 BDSG).


This is kind of to be expected - for whatever reason, resilvers seem
to go super slow at first and then speed up significantly. Just don't
ask me how long "at first" is - I'd give it several (more) hours.
I don't _think_ sync affects resilver speed (since that's a filesystem
level setting and the resilver happens at the block level), but that's
pure speculation.
The Tuning guide at https://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide also
suggests a list of sysctls you can tweak, which could be worth a try:

### wiki
If you're getting horrible performance during a scrub or resilver, the
following sysctls can be set:

vfs.zfs.scrub_delay=3D0
vfs.zfs.top_maxinflight=3D128
vfs.zfs.resilver_min_time_ms=3D5000
vfs.zfs.resilver_delay=3D0

Setting those sysctls to those values increased my (Shawn Webb's)
resilver performance from 7MB/s to 230MB/s.
###



--=20
Daniel Nebdal



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2Bt49PJuznLxGnLERwAhVW2CjETJYWO6rKcWo3qOo5bZLQkqYA>