Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:26:08 +0100 From: Albert Cervin <albert@acervin.com> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS - poor performance with "large" directories Message-ID: <CAMMK2LBCpgb8SPZrC0to9kHHWzFvgvSzaiKjpH-PQm22q%2B=n3g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK3czSuxGH0J%2BVyPRfC8CiGJBk_CPf=bwQzxLjM94RCY9A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMMK2LCB5ocjyufZCMXQScQDgVxvSHOr0vmef6LKzPO35w3TQg@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BtpaK3czSuxGH0J%2BVyPRfC8CiGJBk_CPf=bwQzxLjM94RCY9A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks! "I should hope not. ext4 vs zfs comparison isn't fair for either." I do realize that comparing ext4 and ZFS is not really giving anything but it tells us one thing, ext4 would work whereas ZFS would not for our use case, which was unexpected, at least to me. vfs.zfs.txg.timeout is already verified to be 5 (the default). I have also turned off atime and vfs.zfs.arc_meta_limit is 1287906304. "Do you have any memory pressures on your server ? Have a look at this thread" The server has 4 cores and 8Gb of memory and there is no memory pressure on the server. Thanks, will look at the thread! The setup is _really_ simple with just a single pool and no datasets. Any more ideas? Cheers, Albert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMMK2LBCpgb8SPZrC0to9kHHWzFvgvSzaiKjpH-PQm22q%2B=n3g>