Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Roch schrieb: > Thomas, for long latency fat links, it should be quite > beneficial to set the socket buffer on the receive side > (instead of having users tune tcp_recv_hiwat). > > throughput of a tcp connnection is gated by > "receive socket buffer / round trip time". > > Could that be Ross' p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

nce when you can actually see what's going on. > > > > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:08:14 +0200 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Impr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Victor Latushkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote > Indeed. For example, less than a week ago fix for the following two CRs > (along with some others) was put back into Solaris Nevada: > > 6333409 traversal code should be able to issue multiple reads in parallel > 6418042

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Richard Elling пишет: >> Keep in mind that this is for Solaris 10 not opensolaris. > > Keep in mind that any changes required for Solaris 10 will first > be available in OpenSolaris, including any changes which may > have already been implemented. Indeed. For example, less than a week ago fix for

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Miles Nordin wrote: >> "r" == Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > r> figures so close to 10MB/s. All three servers are running > r> full duplex gigabit though > > there is one tricky way 100Mbit/s could still bite you, but it's > probably not happening to you. It mostly affe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Keep in mind that any changes required for Solaris 10 will first > be available in OpenSolaris, including any changes which may > have already been implemented. > For me (who uses SOL10) it is the only way I can get infor

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Scott Williamson wrote: > Hi All, > > I have opened a ticket with sun support #66104157 regarding zfs send / > receive and will let you know what I find out. Thanks. > > Keep in mind that this is for Solaris 10 not opensolaris. Keep in mind that any changes required for Solaris 10 will firs

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

> "r" == Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: r> figures so close to 10MB/s. All three servers are running r> full duplex gigabit though there is one tricky way 100Mbit/s could still bite you, but it's probably not happening to you. It mostly affects home users with unmanaged switche

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi All, I have opened a ticket with sun support #66104157 regarding zfs send / receive and will let you know what I find out. Keep in mind that this is for Solaris 10 not opensolaris. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Yup, that's one of the first things I checked when it came out with figures so close to 10MB/s. All three servers are running full duplex gigabit though, as reported by both Solaris and the switch. And both the NFS at 60+MB/s, and the zfs send / receive are all going over the same network link, i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Ross, On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, just did some more testing on this machine to try to find where my > bottlenecks are. Something very odd is going on here. As best I can tell > there are two separate problems now: > > - something is throttling net

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Ok, just did some more testing on this machine to try to find where my bottlenecks are. Something very odd is going on here. As best I can tell there are two separate problems now: - something is throttling network output to 10MB/s - something is throttling zfs send to around 20MB/s The netwo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

So I am zfs sending ~450 datasets between thumpers running SOL10U5 via ssh, most are empty except maybe 10 that have a few GB of files. I see the following output on one that contained ~1GB of files in my send report: Output from zfs receive -v "received 1.07Gb stream in 30 seconds (36.4Mb/sec)"

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

ch is stored (via sync NFS) on the server I'm having problems with... Ross > Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:27:49 +0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance > > Hi Ros

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

> Try to separate the two things:> > (1) Try /dev/zero -> mbuffer --- network > ---> mbuffer > /dev/null > That should give you wirespeed I tried that already. It still gets just 10-11MB/s from this server. I can get zfs send / receive and mbuffer working at 30MB/s though from a couple of test

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Ross Ross wrote: > Now though I don't think it's network at all. The end result from that > thread is that we can't see any errors in the network setup, and using > nicstat and NFS I can show that the server is capable of 50-60MB/s over the > gigabit link. Nicstat also shows clearly that b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Scott, Scott Williamson wrote: > You seem to be using dd for write testing. In my testing I noted that > there was a large difference in write speed between using dd to write > from /dev/zero and using other files. Writing from /dev/zero always > seemed to be fast, reaching the maximum of ~200M

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Ok, I'm not entirely sure this is the same problem, but it does sound fairly similar. Apologies for hijacking the thread if this does turn out to be something else. After following the advice here to get mbuffer working with zfs send / receive, I found I was only getting around 10MB/s throughp

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Carsten, You seem to be using dd for write testing. In my testing I noted that there was a large difference in write speed between using dd to write from /dev/zero and using other files. Writing from /dev/zero always seemed to be fast, reaching the maximum of ~200MB/s and using cp which would p

[zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Brent Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott, > > Can you tell us the configuration that you're using that is working for > you? > Were you using RaidZ, or RaidZ2? I'm wondering what the "sweetspot" is > to get a good compromise in vdevs and usable space/perform

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi again Brent Jones wrote: > > Scott, > > Can you tell us the configuration that you're using that is working for you? > Were you using RaidZ, or RaidZ2? I'm wondering what the "sweetspot" is > to get a good compromise in vdevs and usable space/performance > Some time ago I made some tests to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Scott Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just want to note that I had the same issue with zfs send + vdevs that had > 11 drives in them on a X4500. Reducing the count of drives per zvol cleared > this up. > > One vdev is IOPS limited to the speed of

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi All, Just want to note that I had the same issue with zfs send + vdevs that had 11 drives in them on a X4500. Reducing the count of drives per zvol cleared this up. One vdev is IOPS limited to the speed of one drive in that vdev, according to this post

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Richard, Richard Elling wrote: > Since you are reading, it depends on where the data was written. > Remember, ZFS dynamic striping != RAID-0. > I would expect something like this if the pool was expanded at some > point in time. No, the RAID was set-up in one go right after jumpstarting the bo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

comments below... Carsten Aulbert wrote: > Hi all, > > Carsten Aulbert wrote: > >> More later. >> > > OK, I'm completely puzzled right now (and sorry for this lengthy email). > My first (and currently only idea) was that the size of the files is > related to this effect, but that does not

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hello all, I think in SS 11 should be -xarch=amd64. Leal. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

org >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance >> >> Thomas Maier-Komor schrieb: >>> BTW: I release a new version of mbuffer today. >> WARNING!!! >> >> Sorry people!!! >> >> The latest version of mbuffer has a regression that c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi all, Carsten Aulbert wrote: > More later. OK, I'm completely puzzled right now (and sorry for this lengthy email). My first (and currently only idea) was that the size of the files is related to this effect, but that does not seem to be the case: (1) A 185 GB zfs file system was transferred

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

I'm using 2008-05-07 (latest stable), am I right in assuming that one is ok? > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:52:42 +0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Thomas Maier-Komor schrieb: > BTW: I release a new version of mbuffer today. WARNING!!! Sorry people!!! The latest version of mbuffer has a regression that can CORRUPT output if stdout is used. Please fall back to the last version. A fix is on the way... - Thomas ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Ross Ross Smith wrote: > Thanks, that got it working. I'm still only getting 10MB/s, so it's not > solved my problem - I've still got a bottleneck somewhere, but mbuffer is a > huge improvement over standard zfs send / receive. It makes such a > difference when you can actually see what's

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

what's going on. > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:08:14 +0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance > > Ross schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> I'm jus

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Ross schrieb: > Hi, > > I'm just doing my first proper send/receive over the network and I'm getting > just 9.4MB/s over a gigabit link. Would you be able to provide an example of > how to use mbuffer / socat with ZFS for a Solaris beginner? > > thanks, > > Ross > -- > This message posted fro

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi, I'm just doing my first proper send/receive over the network and I'm getting just 9.4MB/s over a gigabit link. Would you be able to provide an example of how to use mbuffer / socat with ZFS for a Solaris beginner? thanks, Ross -- This message posted from opensolaris.org __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Carsten Aulbert schrieb: > Hi again, > > Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: >> Carsten Aulbert schrieb: >>> Hi Thomas, >> I don't know socat or what benefit it gives you, but have you tried >> using mbuffer to send and receive directly (options -I and -O)? > > I thought we tried that in the past and with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi again, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: > Carsten Aulbert schrieb: >> Hi Thomas, > I don't know socat or what benefit it gives you, but have you tried > using mbuffer to send and receive directly (options -I and -O)? I thought we tried that in the past and with socat it seemed faster, but I just made

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Carsten Aulbert schrieb: > Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: > >> Carsten, >> >> the summary looks like you are using mbuffer. Can you elaborate on what >> options you are passing to mbuffer? Maybe changing the blocksize to be >> consistent with the recordsize of the zpool could improve pe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Thomas, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: > > Carsten, > > the summary looks like you are using mbuffer. Can you elaborate on what > options you are passing to mbuffer? Maybe changing the blocksize to be > consistent with the recordsize of the zpool could improve performance. > Is the buffer running

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi Darren J Moffat wrote: > > What are you using to transfer the data over the network ? > Initially just plain ssh which was way to slow, now we use mbuffer on both ends and socket transfer the data over via socat - I know that mbuffer already allows this, but in a few tests socat seemed to b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Carsten Aulbert schrieb: > Hi all, > > although I'm running all this in a Sol10u5 X4500, I hope I may ask this > question here. If not, please let me know where to head to. > > We are running several X4500 with only 3 raidz2 zpools since we want > quite a bit of storage space[*], but the performa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Carsten Aulbert wrote: > Hi all, > > although I'm running all this in a Sol10u5 X4500, I hope I may ask this > question here. If not, please let me know where to head to. > > We are running several X4500 with only 3 raidz2 zpools since we want > quite a bit of storage space[*], but the performanc

[zfs-discuss] Improving zfs send performance

Hi all, although I'm running all this in a Sol10u5 X4500, I hope I may ask this question here. If not, please let me know where to head to. We are running several X4500 with only 3 raidz2 zpools since we want quite a bit of storage space[*], but the performance we get when using zfs send is somet