Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On 28/12/2010 23:56, Freek van Hemert wrote: > I have a question regarding zfs on freebsd. > (I'm making a home server) > This afternoon I did a "zpool create data mirror ad4 ad6" Now I'm copying > things from my ufs2 disk into the 2TB zpool, it is very slow. I'm on freebsd > 8.1 amd64 on an atom n330 with 2 sata disks, gstat tells me I'm going at > around 2 mbps at near 100 %busy while the ufs2 drives are near 0. Also, > ufs2 to ufs2 was much faster (I estimate about 10 times faster). How do I > tune? The wiki is not helpful for amd64 users stating that the defaults > should be optimal. I'm using the 8.1-stable version which has just been > installed this afternoon from a minimal install iso. Upgrade to one of the 8.2 release candidates or to a recent RELENG_8 / stable/8 -- there has been serious work done on ZFS since 8.1-RELEASE including the import of ZFS v15, and it is a lot more performant. Or wait a few weeks and then upgrade to 8.2-RELEASE. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
Thanx for all the replies. The hacks sounds good until 8.2 is released however, regarding this upgrade, is the on-disk format the same? Can I just add the pool to a new install (of 8.2-RC) and expect higher performance? Or do I need to recreate the pool with the newer versions of the utilities? On 29 December 2010 09:38, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 28/12/2010 23:56, Freek van Hemert wrote: > > I have a question regarding zfs on freebsd. > > (I'm making a home server) > > This afternoon I did a "zpool create data mirror ad4 ad6" Now I'm copying > > things from my ufs2 disk into the 2TB zpool, it is very slow. I'm on > freebsd > > 8.1 amd64 on an atom n330 with 2 sata disks, gstat tells me I'm going at > > around 2 mbps at near 100 %busy while the ufs2 drives are near 0. Also, > > ufs2 to ufs2 was much faster (I estimate about 10 times faster). How do I > > tune? The wiki is not helpful for amd64 users stating that the defaults > > should be optimal. I'm using the 8.1-stable version which has just been > > installed this afternoon from a minimal install iso. > > Upgrade to one of the 8.2 release candidates or to a recent RELENG_8 / > stable/8 -- there has been serious work done on ZFS since 8.1-RELEASE > including the import of ZFS v15, and it is a lot more performant. > > Or wait a few weeks and then upgrade to 8.2-RELEASE. > >Cheers, > >Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard > Flat 3 > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate > JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW > > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: New ZFSv28 patchset for 8-STABLE: Kernel Panic
On Wednesday, 29 December 2010, jhell wrote: > > Another note too, I think I read that you mentioned using the L2ARC and > slog device on the same disk You simply shouldn't do this it could > be contributing to the real cause and there is absolutely no gain in > either sanity or performance and you will end up bottle-necking your system. > >> And why would that be? I've read so many conflictinginformation on the matter over the past few days that I'm starting to wonder if there's an actual definitive answer on the matter or if anyone has a clue regarding what they're talking about. It ranges from, should only use raw disk to freebsd isn't solaris so slices are fine. Don't use slice because they can't be read by another OS use partitions.. It doesn't apply to SSD and so on.. The way I look at it, the only thing that would bottleneck access to that SSD drive, is the SATA interface itself. So using two drives, or two partitions on the same drive, I can't see how it would make much difference if any other than the traditional "I think I know" argument. Surely latency as with know it with hard drive do not apply to SSDs. Even within sun's official documentation, they are contradicting information, starting from the commands on how to add remove/cache of log device. It seems to me that tuning ZFS is very much like black magic, everyone has their own idea about what to do, and not once did I get to read conclusive evidence about what is best or find an information people actually agree on. As for using unofficial code, sure I accept that risk now. I made a conscious decision on using it, there's now no way to go back and I accept that. At the end of the day, it's the only thing that will make that code suitable for real world condition: testing. If that particular code isn't put under any actual stress how else are you going to know if its good or not. I don't really like reading between the lines of your post that I shouldn't be surprised should anything break or that it doesn't matter if it crashes. there's a deadlock occurring somewhere : it needs to be found. I know nothing about the ZFS code, and I could only do what I'm capable of under those circumstances: find a way to reproduce the problem consistently, report as much information as I have so someone more clueey will know what to do with it. Hope that makes sense Jean-Yves ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
Guckux Freek > The hacks sounds good until 8.2 is released however, regarding this > upgrade, > is the on-disk format the same? Can I just add the pool to a new install > (of > 8.2-RC) and expect higher performance? Or do I need to recreate the pool > with the newer versions of the utilities? just do an upgrade of zfs... "zpool upgrade" Bye Stefan ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:55:57AM +0100, Stefan Huerter wrote: > Guckux Freek > > > The hacks sounds good until 8.2 is released however, regarding this > > upgrade, > > is the on-disk format the same? Can I just add the pool to a new install > > (of > > 8.2-RC) and expect higher performance? Or do I need to recreate the pool > > with the newer versions of the utilities? > > just do an upgrade of zfs... > "zpool upgrade" He'll need a "zfs upgrade" too. -- Guido Falsi ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: 8.2-RC1: installer does not recognize some disks properly
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Claus Assmann > wrote: > I just tried to install 8.2-RC1 (amd64) on one of my machines. It > has two disks: WDC WD1001FALS-4 and SAMSUNG HD103SJ, both 1TB SATA > disks. The installer shows them as ad10 and ad8. Both disks are > already in use and have been "formatted" via fdisk, e.g., the Samsung > (ad10) has 3 partitions (BF, A9, A8)) and the WDC has 4 (A6, BF, > A5, A9). However, the installer only shows the existing partitions > for the Samsung, but not for the WDC. The WDC is the boot disk and > has a Grub loader installed. What could be the reason that the > existing partitioning is not recognized by the installer? > I've got a similar issue via the thread about a 2y/o laptop and a new hard drive. Linux sees the drive fine and can use it but freebsd cannot for some reason. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On 29/12/2010 08:57, Freek van Hemert wrote: > The hacks sounds good until 8.2 is released however, regarding this upgrade, > is the on-disk format the same? Can I just add the pool to a new install (of > 8.2-RC) and expect higher performance? Or do I need to recreate the pool > with the newer versions of the utilities? No -- the on-disk format is different. ZFS will run fine with the older on-disk formats, but you won't get the full benefits without updating them. You'll need to run both 'zpool update -a' and 'zfs update -a' -- this is a non-reversible step, so be certain you will never need to downgrade before doing it. Also, you *will* need to update gptzfsboot on your drives, or you will come to a sticky end if you try and reboot. Something like this: # gpart bootcode -b /boot/pmbr -p /boot/gptzfsboot -i 1 ad0 Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On Thursday, 30 December 2010, Matthew Seaman wrote: > No -- the on-disk format is different. ZFS will run fine with the older > on-disk formats, but you won't get the full benefits without updating > them. You'll need to run both 'zpool update -a' and 'zfs update -a' -- I believe it's "upgrade" you want to use, not update. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: root mount error
On 2010-Dec-28 23:08:44 +0300, Michael BlackHeart wrote: >I'm jsut trying to say than recent changes in kernel or kernel-modules >broke up my HDD support and I'd like to notice developres to check >where the problem is. It doesn't work that way. The developers don't have a problem or it would have been fixed. You are going to need to provide more details and do some investigations yourself to help identify the problem. >Loader on it's own stage easily detects HDD and root partition so I >can just select old kernel and boot up, but I'm not shure how he gain >access to HDD to mfke any conclusion, probably through BIOS interrupts >but it's out of piont. Yes. Until the kernel starts, all I/O is via BIOS. >And for my pity I don't know how to dump demsg without having any >serial connection or usable disk drive, maybe to flash drive, but I >don't know how. And anyway there's no real kernel painc, it just asks >for root mountpoint. Best suggestion I can offer is to take photographs of the boot messages (you can use scroll-lock to let you scroll back) and post them somewhere. >If you need any aditional info I'll give it all, just ask. What is the SVN revision of a kernel that works? What is the SVN revision of a kernel that fails? Can you please post a verbose dmesg of a successful boot. Can you please post a dmesg of an unsuccessful boot (see above). -- Peter Jeremy pgpHUhVzb3Hvu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On 12/29/2010 12:47 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 29/12/2010 08:57, Freek van Hemert wrote: The hacks sounds good until 8.2 is released however, regarding this upgrade, is the on-disk format the same? Can I just add the pool to a new install (of 8.2-RC) and expect higher performance? Or do I need to recreate the pool with the newer versions of the utilities? No -- the on-disk format is different. ZFS will run fine with the older on-disk formats, but you won't get the full benefits without updating them. You'll need to run both 'zpool update -a' and 'zfs update -a' -- this is a non-reversible step, so be certain you will never need to downgrade before doing it. Also, you *will* need to update gptzfsboot on your drives, or you will come to a sticky end if you try and reboot. Something like this: # gpart bootcode -b /boot/pmbr -p /boot/gptzfsboot -i 1 ad0 Cheers, Matthew This part applies only if you're booting from ZFS drives? -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
