From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Thu Feb 21 16:44:25 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6B414E7963 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4789082EA9 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 0BDDF14E7962; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:25 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEAA14E7961 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C7982EA4 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A837D1D05B for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1LGiNgk017967 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:23 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x1LGiNpQ017966 for fs@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:23 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 230260] [FUSE] [PERFORMANCE]: Performance issue (I/O block size) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: cem@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:44:25 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D230260 --- Comment #15 from Conrad Meyer --- (In reply to Kenneth D. Merry from comment #14) I don't do stable/, but anyone is free to MFC it themselves. It shouldn't conflict. > Since tape drives don't do tagged queueing, the common way to get better > performance is to use a larger block size. LTFS supports up to 1MB block > sizes, and in order to read tapes from other systems and get better > performance, we set MAXPHYS to over 1MB. (So we can get 1MB I/O regardle= ss > of alignment.) DFLTPHYS goes along with that. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. (I think it is probable that FUSE should move to the tunable maxbcachebuf instead of MAXBSIZE; MAXBSIZE is nearly orphaned in base, and can probably = be removed. But that is somewhat orthogonal.) Thank you for reporting this and especially mentioning the non-default DFLTPHYS. I did not realize it was a value people changed in their own kernels. :-) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=