Ivan Debnár wrote:

Hi,

I deployed ZFS on our mailserver recently, hoping for eternal peace after 
running on UFS and moving files witch each TB added.

It is mailserver - it's mdirs are on ZFS pool:
                             capacity     operations    bandwidth
pool                        used  avail   read  write   read  write
------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- mailstore 3.54T 2.08T 280 295 7.10M 5.24M
 mirror                    590G   106G     34     31   676K   786K
   c6t3d0                     -      -     14     16   960K   773K
   c8t22260001552EFE2Cd0      -      -     16     18  1.06M   786K
 mirror                    613G  82.9G     51     37  1.44M   838K
   c6t3d1                     -      -     20     19  1.57M   824K
   c5t1d1                     -      -     20     24  1.40M   838K
   c8t227C0001559A761Bd0      -      -      5    101   403K  4.63M
 mirror                    618G  78.3G    133     60  6.23M   361K
   c6t3d2                     -      -     40     27  3.21M   903K
   c4t2d0                     -      -     23     81  1.91M  2.98M
   c8t221200015599F2CFd0      -      -      6    108   442K  4.71M
 mirror                    613G  83.2G    110     51  3.66M   337K
   c6t3d3                     -      -     36     25  2.72M   906K
   c5t2d1                     -      -     29     65  1.80M  2.92M
 mirror                    415G  29.0G     30     28   460K   278K
   c6t3d4                     -      -     11     19   804K   268K
   c4t1d2                     -      -     15     22   987K   278K
 mirror                    255G   441G     26     49   536K  1.02M
   c8t22110001552F3C46d0      -      -     12     27   835K  1.02M
   c8t224B0001559BB471d0      -      -     12     29   835K  1.02M
 mirror                    257G   439G     32     52   571K  1.04M
   c8t22480001552D7AF8d0      -      -     14     28  1003K  1.04M
   c4t1d0                     -      -     14     32  1002K  1.04M
 mirror                    251G   445G     28     53   543K  1.02M
   c8t227F0001552CB892d0      -      -     13     28   897K  1.02M
   c8t22250001559830A5d0      -      -     13     30   897K  1.02M
 mirror                   17.4G   427G     22     38   339K   393K
   c8t22FA00015529F784d0      -      -      9     19   648K   393K
   c5t2d2                     -      -      9     23   647K   393K


It is 3x dual-iSCSI + 2x dual SCSI DAS arrays (RAID0, 13x250).

I have problem however:
The 2 SCSI arrays were able to handle the mail-traffic fine with UFS on them.
The new config with 3 additional arrays seem to have problem using ZFS.
The writes are waiting for 10-15 seconds to get to disk - so queue fills ver 
quickly, reads are quite ok.

Are those synchronouse writes or asynchronous? If both, what are the percentages of each?

Neil just putback a fix into snv_48 for:
6413510 zfs: writing to ZFS filesystem slows down fsync() on other files in the same FS

Basically the fsync/synchronous writes end up doing more work than they should - instead of writing the data and meta-data for just the file you're trying to fsync, you will write (and wait for) other files' data & meta-data too.

eric

I assume this is the problem with ZFS prefering reads to writes.

I also see in 'zpool iostat -v 1' that writes are issued to disk only once in 
10 secs, and then its 2000rq one sec.
Reads are sustained at cca 800rq/s.

Is there a way to tune this read/write ratio? Is this know problem?

I tried to change vq_max_pending as suggested by Eric in 
http://blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/entry/vq_max_pending
But no change in this write behaviour.

Iostat shows cca 20-30ms asvc_t, 0%w, and cca 30% busy on all drives so these 
are not saturated it seems. (before with UTF they had 90%busy, 1%wait).

System is Sol 10 U2, sun x4200, 4GB RAM.

Please if you could give me some hint to really make this working as the way 
back to UFS is almost impossible on live system.




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

Reply via email to