Bob,

Output of my run for you. System is a M3000 with 16 GB RAM and 1 zpool called test1
which is contained on a raid 1 volume on a 6140 with 7.50.13.10 firmware on
the RAID controllers. RAid 1 is made up of two 146GB 15K FC disks.

This machine is brand new with a clean install of S10 05/09. It is destined to become a Oracle 10 server with
ZFS filesystems for zones and DB volumes.

[r...@xxx /]#> uname -a
SunOS xxx 5.10 Generic_139555-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
[r...@xxx /]#> cat /etc/release
                      Solaris 10 5/09 s10s_u7wos_08 SPARC
          Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
                       Use is subject to license terms.
                            Assembled 30 March 2009

[r...@xxx /]#> prtdiag -v | more
System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Sun SPARC Enterprise M3000 Server
System clock frequency: 1064 MHz
Memory size: 16384 Megabytes


Here is the run output for you.

[r...@xxx tmp]#> ./zfs-cache-test.ksh test1
zfs create test1/zfscachetest
Creating data file set (3000 files of 8192000 bytes) under /test1/zfscachetest ...
Done!
zfs unmount test1/zfscachetest
zfs mount test1/zfscachetest

Doing initial (unmount/mount) 'cpio -o > /dev/null'
48000247 blocks

real    4m48.94s
user    0m21.58s
sys     0m44.91s

Doing second 'cpio -o > /dev/null'
48000247 blocks

real    6m39.87s
user    0m21.62s
sys     0m46.20s

Feel free to clean up with 'zfs destroy test1/zfscachetest'.

Looks like a 25% performance loss for me. I was seeing around 80MB/s sustained
on the first run and around 60M/'s sustained on the 2nd.

/Scott.


Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
There has been no forward progress on the ZFS read performance issue for a week now. A 4X reduction in file read performance due to having read the file before is terrible, and of course the situation is considerably worse if the file was previously mmapped as well. Many of us have sent a lot of money to Sun and were not aware that ZFS is sucking the life out of our expensive Sun hardware.

It is trivially easy to reproduce this problem on multiple machines. For example, I reproduced it on my Blade 2500 (SPARC) which uses a simple mirrored rpool. On that system there is a 1.8X read slowdown from the file being accessed previously.

In order to raise visibility of this issue, I invite others to see if they can reproduce it in their ZFS pools. The script at

http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/zfs-discuss/zfs-cache-test.ksh

Implements a simple test. It requires a fair amount of disk space to run, but the main requirement is that the disk space consumed be more than available memory so that file data gets purged from the ARC. The script needs to run as root since it creates a filesystem and uses mount/umount. The script does not destroy any data.

There are several adjustments which may be made at the front of the script. The pool 'rpool' is used by default, but the name of the pool to test may be supplied via an argument similar to:

# ./zfs-cache-test.ksh Sun_2540
zfs create Sun_2540/zfscachetest
Creating data file set (3000 files of 8192000 bytes) under /Sun_2540/zfscachetest ...
Done!
zfs unmount Sun_2540/zfscachetest
zfs mount Sun_2540/zfscachetest

Doing initial (unmount/mount) 'cpio -o > /dev/null'
48000247 blocks

real    2m54.17s
user    0m7.65s
sys     0m36.59s

Doing second 'cpio -o > /dev/null'
48000247 blocks

real    11m54.65s
user    0m7.70s
sys     0m35.06s

Feel free to clean up with 'zfs destroy Sun_2540/zfscachetest'.

And here is a similar run on my Blade 2500 using the default rpool:

# ./zfs-cache-test.ksh
zfs create rpool/zfscachetest
Creating data file set (3000 files of 8192000 bytes) under /rpool/zfscachetest ...
Done!
zfs unmount rpool/zfscachetest
zfs mount rpool/zfscachetest

Doing initial (unmount/mount) 'cpio -o > /dev/null'
48000247 blocks

real    13m3.91s
user    2m43.04s
sys     9m28.73s

Doing second 'cpio -o > /dev/null'
48000247 blocks

real    23m50.27s
user    2m41.81s
sys     9m46.76s

Feel free to clean up with 'zfs destroy rpool/zfscachetest'.

I am interested to hear about systems which do not suffer from this bug.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

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

Reply via email to