From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 25 09:58:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347B21065674; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:58:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756658FC16; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:58:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4889A3DD.8030801@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:58:53 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Chadwick References: <20080725094516.GA71385@eos.sc1.parodius.com> In-Reply-To: <20080725094516.GA71385@eos.sc1.parodius.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Stable , Claus Guttesen Subject: Re: zfs, raidz, spare and jbod X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:58:55 -0000 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:46:34AM +0200, Claus Guttesen wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I installed FreeBSD 7 a few days ago and upgraded to the latest stable >> release using GENERIC kernel. I also added these entries to >> /boot/loader.conf: >> >> vm.kmem_size="1536M" >> vm.kmem_size_max="1536M" >> vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable=1 >> >> Initially prefetch was enabled and I would experience hangs but after >> disabling prefetch copying large amounts of data would go along >> without problems. To see if FreeBSD 8 (current) had better (copy) >> performance I upgraded to current as of yesterday. After upgrading and >> rebooting the server responded fine. > > With regards to RELENG_7, I completely agree with disabling prefetch. > The overall performance (of the system and disk I/O) appears signicantly > "smoother", e.g. less hard lock-ups and stalls, is better when prefetch > is disabled. FYI I do not get "lock-ups" when running with prefetch. It is supposed to just affect performance, i.e. if you have few disks or they have low bandwidth or high seek times (e.g. crappy ATA) then it can saturate them and you will have poor response times. However if your hardware is more capable then it is a performance optimization. Someone needs to obtain the usual debugging information. Kris