Hey there, Bob! Looks like you and Akhilesh (thanks, Akhilesh!) are driving at a similar, very valid point. I'm currently using the default recordsize (128K) on all of the ZFS pool (those of the iSCSI target nodes and the aggregate pool on the head node).
I should've mentioned something about how the storage will be used in my original post, so I'm glad you brought it up. It will all be presented over NFS and CIFS as a 10GBe+Infiniband NAS which will serve a number of organizations. Some organizations will simply use their area for end-user file sharing, others will use it as a disk backup target, others for databases, and still others for HPC data crunching (gene sequences). Each of these uses will be on different filesystems, of course, so I expect it would be good to set different recordsize paramaters for each one. Do you have any suggestions on good starting sizes for each? I'd imagine filesharing might benefit from a relatively small record size (64K?), image-based backup targets might like a pretty large record size (256K?), databases just need recordsizes to match their block sizes, and HPC...I have no idea. Heh. I expect I'll need to get in contact with the HPC lab to see what kind of profile they have (whether they deal with tiny files or big files, etc). What do you think? Today I'm going to try a few non-ZFS-related tweaks (disabling the Nagle algorithm on the iSCSI initiator and increasing MTU everywhere to 9000). I'll give those a shot and see if they yield performance enhancements. -Gray On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Gray Carper wrote: > >> >> So, how concerned should we be about the low scores here and there? Any >> suggestions on how to improve our configuration? And how excited should we >> be about the 8GB tests? ;> >> > > The level of concern should depend on how you expect your storage pool to > actually be used. It seems that it should work great for bulk storage, but > not to support a database, or ultra high-performance super-computing > applications. The good 8GB performance is due to successful ZFS ARC caching > in RAM, and because the record size is reasonable given the ZFS block size > and the buffering ability of the intermediate links. You might see somewhat > better performance using a 256K record size. > > It may take quite a while to fill 150TB up. > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > > -- Gray Carper MSIS Technical Services University of Michigan Medical School [EMAIL PROTECTED] | skype: graycarper | 734.418.8506 http://www.umms.med.umich.edu/msis/
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
