> metaslab_min_alloc_size is not the metaslab size. From the source Sorry- that was simply a slip of the mind- it was a long day.
> By reducing this value, it is easier for the allocator to identify a > metaslab for allocation as the file system becomes full. Thank you for clarifying. Is there a danger to reducing this value to 4k? Also 4k and 10M are pretty far apart- is there an intermediate value we should be using that would be a better compromise? > For slow disks with the default zfs_vdev_max_pending, the IO scheduler > becomes ineffective. Consider reducing zfs_vdev_max_pending to see if > performance > improves. > Based on recent testing I've done on a variety of disks, a value of 1 or 2 > can be better for 7,200 rpm disks or slower. The tradeoff is a few IOPS for > much better > average latency. I was having this scrub performance problem when my pool was nothing but 15k SAS drives so I'm not sure if it will help but I'll certainly give it a try. Thanks for the suggestion. -Don _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
