Ray Galvin wrote:
> Thanks for the information Richard!
>
> The output of running arcstat.pl is included below.   A potentially
> interesting thing I see is that the "Prefetch miss percentage" is
> 100% during this test.   I would have thought that a large sequential
> read test would be an easy case for prefetch prediction.
>
> When I first start the test and am seeing a 100Mbytes/sec
> read rate, arcstat  output is:
>
> Time  read  miss  miss%  dmis  dm%  pmis  pm%  mmis  mm%  arcsz     c
> 10:29:22   685   374     54     9    2   365  100     7    2    51M  490M
> 10:29:23    2K   855     37     7    0   848  100     7    0   163M  490M
> 10:29:24    2K   774     33     6    0   768  100     6    0   264M  490M
> 10:29:25    3K    1K     33     8    0    1K  100     8    0   398M  490M
> 10:29:26    2K   774     30     6    0   768  100     6    0   413M  412M
> 10:29:27    2K    1K     34     8    0    1K  100     8    0   413M  412M
> 10:29:28    2K   774     35     6    0   768  100     6    0   413M  412M
> 10:29:29    2K   774     34     6    0   768  100     6    0   413M  412M
> 10:29:30    2K   774     36     6    0   768  100     6    0   413M  412M
> 10:29:31    2K   774     35     6    0   768  100     6    0   413M  412M
>
> 13 minutes later after the test has run about 30 times (and
> still going) and the read rate has dropped to 50 Mbytes/sec 
> the arcstat output is:
>
>     Time  read  miss  miss%  dmis  dm%  pmis  pm%  mmis  mm%  arcsz     c
> 10:42:58    1K   523     40    11    1   512  100     4    0   397M  397M
> 10:42:59   761   266     34    10    1   256  100     2    0   397M  397M
> 10:43:00    1K   525     41    13    1   512  100     4    0   397M  397M
> 10:43:01    1K   464     40    15    2   449  100     4    0   397M  397M
> 10:43:02   932   331     35    12    1   319  100     4    1   397M  397M
> 10:43:03    1K   534     41    19    2   515   99     8    1   397M  397M
> 10:43:04   770   266     34    10    1   256  100     2    0   397M  397M
> 10:43:05    1K   525     41    13    1   512  100     4    0   397M  397M
> 10:43:06   777   267     34    11    2   256  100     3    1   397M  397M
> 10:43:08    1K   533     41    18    2   515   99     7    1   397M  397M
>
> Given the information above, is it still likely this degradation
> would not occur on a faster machine with more memory?
>   

If this change correlates with an increase in system time, then yes.
Memory will likely offer more imact than CPU speed.

Note: this is what we would consider a small memory machine and
you might want to consider disabling prefetches altogether, if your
workload does not benefit from prefetching.  Details on how to do
this are in the Evil Tuning Guide.
 -- richard

_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to