On Aug 15, 2013, at 11:37 AM, aurfalien <aurfal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Charles Swiger wrote: >> On Aug 15, 2013, at 11:13 AM, aurfalien <aurfal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Is there a faster way to copy files over NFS? >> >> Probably. > > Ok, thanks for the specifics.
You're most welcome. >>> Currently breaking up a simple rsync over 7 or so scripts which copies 22 >>> dirs having ~500,000 dirs or files each. >> >> There's a maximum useful concurrency which depends on how many disk spindles >> and what flavor of RAID is in use; exceeding it will result in thrashing the >> disks and heavily reducing throughput due to competing I/O requests. Try >> measuring aggregate performance when running fewer rsyncs at once and see >> whether it improves. > > Its 35 disks broken into 7 striped RaidZ groups with an SLC based ZIL and no > atime, the server it self has 128GB ECC RAM. I didn't have time to tune or > really learn ZFS but at this point its only backing up the data for emergency > purposes. OK. If you've got 7 independent groups and can use separate network pipes for each parallel copy, then using 7 simultaneous scripts is likely reasonable. >> Of course, putting half a million files into a single directory level is >> also a bad idea, even with dirhash support. You'd do better to break them >> up into subdirs containing fewer than ~10K files apiece. > > I can't, thats our job structure obviously developed by scrip kiddies and not > systems ppl, but I digress. Identifying something which is "broken as designed" is still helpful, since it indicates what needs to change. >>> Obviously reading all the meta data is a PITA. >> >> Yes. >> >>> Doin 10Gb/jumbos but in this case it don't make much of a hoot of a diff. >> >> Yeah, probably not-- you're almost certainly I/O bound, not network bound. > > Actually it was network bound via 1 rsync process which is why I broke up 154 > dirs into 7 batches of 22 each. Oh. Um, unless you can make more network bandwidth available, you've saturated the bottleneck. Doing a single copy task is likely to complete faster than splitting up the job into subtasks in such a case. Regards, -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
