From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 6 10:55:48 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D30810656BD for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:55:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=186543ef20=killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70D98FC18 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:55:47 +0000 (UTC) X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:45:23 +0100 X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:45:23 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=6.0 tests=USER_IN_WHITELIST shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 Received: from r2d2 by mail1.multiplay.co.uk (MDaemon PRO v10.0.4) with ESMTP id md50011185977.msg for ; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:45:22 +0100 X-Authenticated-Sender: Killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDRemoteIP: 188.220.16.49 X-Return-Path: prvs=186543ef20=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: From: "Steven Hartland" To: "jhell" References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><4C825D65.3040004@DataIX.net> <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> <4C83A214.1080204@DataIX.net> <06B9D23F202D4DB88D69B7C4507986B7@multiplay.co.uk> <4C842905.2080602@DataIX.net> <330B5DB2215F43899ABAEC2CF71C2EE0@multiplay.co.uk> <4C84341D.8060708@DataIX.net> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:45:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:55:48 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "jhell" >> Will see what happens with stable tomorrow though :) > > Good luck Steve, Look forward to hearing the result. If you are happy > with the result you get from stable/8 I would reccommend patching to v15 > which is much more stable than the v14 code. No joy I'm afraid still the same:- ARC Size: Current Size: 57.14% 2047.91M (arcsize) Target Size: (Adaptive) 57.14% 2048.00M (c) Min Size (Hard Limit): 57.14% 2048.00M (c_min) Max Size (High Water): ~1:1 3584.00M (c_max) Mem: 104M Active, 1185M Inact, 2452M Wired, 268K Cache, 418M Buf, 202M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 1112K Used, 4095M Free > The specific patches you would want are: (in order) > http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v15/stable-8-v15.patch > http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_metaslab_v2.patch > http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_abe_stat_rrwlock.patch > and then the needfree.patch I already posted. > > The maxusers.patch being optional. Can do this but do we believe this will have any impact on the problem? Regards Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.