From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 19 03:03:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 A6E3D6E4 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp101-5.vfemail.net (nine.vfemail.net [108.76.175.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BFD62DDC for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25477 invoked by uid 89); 19 Nov 2013 03:03:29 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 25467, pid: 25470, t: 0.0532s scanners:none Received: from unknown (HELO www110) (cmlja0BoYXZva21vbi5jb20=@MTcyLjE2LjEwMC45Mg==) by 172.16.100.61 with ESMTPA; 19 Nov 2013 03:03:29 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:03:28 -0600 Message-ID: <20131118210328.Horde.ONsT69y3hBKUccCAO1qR4Q8@www.vfemail.net> From: Rick Romero To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance difference between UFS and ZFS with NFS References: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.5) X-VFEmail-Originating-IP: MTA4Ljc2LjE3NS4xMw== X-VFEmail-Remote-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0 @ X-VFEmail-AntiSpam: Notify admin@vfemail.net of any spam, and include VFEmail headers X-Remote-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:03:37 -0000 Quoting Eric Browning : > Right now I'm going to have to abandon ZFS until it works with NFS. I > don't want to get into a finger pointing game, I'd just like to help get > this fixed, I have one old i386 server I can try things out on if that > helps and it's already on 9 stable and ZFS v28. When you created the raid0, did you leave the disk cache enabled? I know it's against the purpose of ZFS to leave the controller and drive caches enabled, but it sure improves performance. In both our cases, (IIRC)NFS will also wait for that commit response - so if the caches are disabled, NFS really begins to drag. I believe there was a commit in 9.2 that allowed modification of a sysctl to disable/change the NFS commit... in some manner.. I forget exactly.. they all tie in together. Also disable the cache flushing. See https://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide And http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-30856.html Rick