Garrett Moore wrote:
I've been watching my memory usage and I have no idea what is consuming
memory as 'Active'.
Last night I had around 6500MB 'Active' again, 1500MB Wired, no inact, ~30MB
buf, no free, and ~100MB swap used. My performance copying ZFS-ZFS was
again slow (1MB/s). I tried
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
[...]
Last night I tried ZFS with pool on iSCSI connected Dell MD3000i and I
was suprised by too low speed of simple cp -a command (copying from UFS
partition to ZFS) The write speed was about 2MB/s only.
After looking in to ARC stuff, I realized some weird values:
On 1/19/2010 12:01 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:40:50AM -0500, Garrett Moore wrote:
I've been watching my memory usage and I have no idea what is consuming
memory as 'Active'.
Last night I had around 6500MB 'Active' again, 1500MB Wired, no inact, ~30MB
buf, no free,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:47:30AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com (from Tue, 19 Jan
2010 09:01:01 -0800):
I've two recommendations:
1) Have you considered upgrading to RELENG_8 (e.g. 8.0-STABLE) instead
of sticking with
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com (from Tue, 19 Jan
2010 09:01:01 -0800):
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:40:50AM -0500, Garrett Moore wrote:
I've been watching my memory usage and I have no idea what is consuming
memory as 'Active'.
Last night I had around 6500MB 'Active'
I've been watching my memory usage and I have no idea what is consuming
memory as 'Active'.
Last night I had around 6500MB 'Active' again, 1500MB Wired, no inact, ~30MB
buf, no free, and ~100MB swap used. My performance copying ZFS-ZFS was
again slow (1MB/s). I tried killing rTorrent and no
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:40:50AM -0500, Garrett Moore wrote:
I've been watching my memory usage and I have no idea what is consuming
memory as 'Active'.
Last night I had around 6500MB 'Active' again, 1500MB Wired, no inact, ~30MB
buf, no free, and ~100MB swap used. My performance copying
On January 17, 2010, Garrett Moore wrote:
I upgraded my system to 8GB of ram to see if that would help. It hasn't
made much of a difference. After having rTorrent running for a while, my
performance again tanked. Around 6.5GB of memory was showing as 'Active'
according to top.
6.5GB of
I upgraded my system to 8GB of ram to see if that would help. It hasn't made
much of a difference. After having rTorrent running for a while, my
performance again tanked. Around 6.5GB of memory was showing as 'Active'
according to top. Copying a file from the zpool to another location on the
zpool
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:05:06 -0800 Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
All that said -- I know what the OP is referring to, as I've seen it
myself (on RELENG_7, and possibly early releases of 8.0). The only
way to relieve the pain, AFAIK, is to reboot.
I assume the problem is that
Andrew Snow wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
It is true that ZFS in theory doesn't do very well with random writes
of any kind - the kind that torrent clients do should actually be the
worst case for ZFS, *but*, this very much depends on the actual workload.
ZFS has aggressive read-ahead for
2010/1/8 Artem Belevich fbsdl...@src.cx:
Keep an eye on ARC size and on active/inactive/cache/free memory lists:
I can share a munin plugin for monitoring some of ARC L1/L2
statistics, as well as memory decomposition.
It still WIP (and I'm sure, that not all statistics are properly
gathered),
After being up for a few days and having good performance, I turned on
rTorrent and downloaded two 700MB files. After these torrents completed, my
performance has tanked again. My combined read/write speed to the array
won't exceed about 25MB/s.
It seems that after having downloaded a few
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 07:40:53PM -0500, Garrett Moore wrote:
If no-one has any questions, I'll try Artem's suggestion of wasting a bunch
of memory in Perl/Python and forcing some memory to be swapped out. (I don't
want to do it yet in case someone wants a specific number before I do that).
Sure:
[r...@leviathan ~]# sysctl kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats
kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.hits: 32092629
kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.misses: 1064835
kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.demand_data_hits: 30542262
kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.demand_data_misses: 848959
kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.demand_metadata_hits: 1550367
No, I haven't isolated the cause to only be uptime related. In my original
email I mentioned that as suggested by someone in the thread, it's probably
not directly related to system uptime, but instead related to usage - the
more usage, the worse the performance.
I've been starting my system with
Keep an eye on ARC size and on active/inactive/cache/free memory lists:
sysctl kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.size
sysctl vm.stats.vm.v_inactive_count
sysctl vm.stats.vm.v_active_count
sysctl vm.stats.vm.v_cache_count
sysctl vm.stats.vm.v_cache_count
ZFS performance does degrade a lot if ARC becomes
On Fri, January 8, 2010 11:31, Garrett Moore wrote:
No, I haven't isolated the cause to only be uptime related. In my original
email I mentioned that as suggested by someone in the thread, it's
probably
not directly related to system uptime, but instead related to usage - the
more usage, the
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:23:03PM -0500, Jonathan Noack wrote:
On Fri, January 8, 2010 11:31, Garrett Moore wrote:
No, I haven't isolated the cause to only be uptime related. In my original
email I mentioned that as suggested by someone in the thread, it's
probably
not directly related
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 03:05:06PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
... You can also explicitly enable prefetch by setting the
value to 1, and this trumps the how-much-usable-RAM check.
This should have read 'setting the value to 0'; sorry.
--
| Jeremy Chadwick
Ivan Voras wrote:
It is true that ZFS in theory doesn't do very well with random writes of
any kind - the kind that torrent clients do should actually be the worst
case for ZFS, *but*, this very much depends on the actual workload.
ZFS has aggressive read-ahead for sequential read-aheads, so
On 3.1.2010 17:42, Garrett Moore wrote:
I'm having problems with ZFS performance. When my system comes up,
read/write speeds are excellent (testing with dd if=/dev/zero
of=/tank/bigfile and dd if=/tank/bigfile of=/dev/null); I get at least
100MB/s on both reads and writes, and I'm happy with
Hello all,
I posted a thread about ZFS performance issues in the General section of the
forums and there were other people having the same issue, so I thought that
it might be helpful to send the details to the mailing list as well. The
thread can be found at:
Garrett Moore garrettmo...@gmail.com writes:
I'm having problems with ZFS performance. When my system comes up,
read/write speeds are excellent (testing with dd if=/dev/zero
of=/tank/bigfile and dd if=/tank/bigfile of=/dev/null); I get at least
100MB/s on both reads and writes, and I'm happy
24 matches
Mail list logo
