comment below...

On Feb 12, 2010, at 2:25 PM, TMB wrote:
> I have a similar question, I put together a cheapo RAID with four 1TB WD 
> Black (7200) SATAs, in a 3TB RAIDZ1, and I added a 64GB OCZ Vertex SSD, with 
> slice 0 (5GB) for ZIL and the rest of the SSD  for cache:
> # zpool status dpool
>  pool: dpool
> state: ONLINE
> scrub: none requested
> config:
> 
>        NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
>        dpool       ONLINE       0     0     0
>          raidz1    ONLINE       0     0     0
>            c0t0d0  ONLINE       0     0     0
>            c0t0d1  ONLINE       0     0     0
>            c0t0d2  ONLINE       0     0     0
>            c0t0d3  ONLINE       0     0     0
> [b]        logs
>          c0t0d4s0  ONLINE       0     0     0[/b]
> [b]        cache
>          c0t0d4s1  ONLINE       0     0     0[/b]
>        spares
>          c0t0d6    AVAIL   
>          c0t0d7    AVAIL   
> 
>               capacity     operations    bandwidth
> pool         used  avail   read  write   read  write
> ----------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
> dpool       72.1G  3.55T    237     12  29.7M   597K
>  raidz1    72.1G  3.55T    237      9  29.7M   469K
>    c0t0d0      -      -    166      3  7.39M   157K
>    c0t0d1      -      -    166      3  7.44M   157K
>    c0t0d2      -      -    166      3  7.39M   157K
>    c0t0d3      -      -    167      3  7.45M   157K
>  c0t0d4s0    20K  4.97G      0      3      0   127K
> cache           -      -      -      -      -      -
>  c0t0d4s1  17.6G  36.4G      3      1   249K   119K
> ----------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
> I just don't seem to be getting any bang for the buck I should be.  This was 
> taken while rebuilding an Oracle index, all files stored in this pool.  The 
> WD disks are at 100%, and nothing is coming from the cache.  The cache does 
> have the entire DB cached (17.6G used), but hardly reads anything from it.  I 
> also am not seeing the spike of data flowing into the ZIL either, although 
> iostat show there is just write traffic hitting the SSD:
> 
>                 extended device statistics                      cpu
> device    r/s    w/s   kr/s   kw/s wait actv  svc_t  %w  %b  us sy wt id
> sd0     170.0    0.4 7684.7    0.0  0.0 35.0  205.3   0 100  11  8  0 82
> sd1     168.4    0.4 7680.2    0.0  0.0 34.6  205.1   0 100 
> sd2     172.0    0.4 7761.7    0.0  0.0 35.0  202.9   0 100 
> sd3       0.0      0.0      0.0    0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0   0   0 
> sd4     170.0    0.4 7727.1    0.0  0.0 35.0  205.3   0 100 
> [b]sd5       1.6      2.6  182.4  104.8  0.0  0.5  117.8   0  31 [/b]

iostat has a "n" option, which is very useful for looking at device names :-)

The SSD here is perfoming well.  The rest are clobbered. 205 millisecond
response time will be agonizingly slow.

By default, for this version of ZFS, up to 35 I/Os will be queued to the
disk, which is why you see 35.0 in the "actv" column. The combination
of actv=35 and svc_t>200 indicates that this is the place to start working.
Begin by reducing zfs_vdev_max_pending from 35 to something like 1 to 4.
This will reduce the concurrent load on the disks, thus reducing svc_t.
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Device_I.2FO_Queue_Size_.28I.2FO_Concurrency.29

 -- richard

> Since this SSD is in a RAID array, and just presents as a regular disk LUN, 
> is there a special incantation required to turn on the Turbo mode?
> 
> Doesnt it seem that all this traffic should be maxing out the SSD? Reads from 
> the cache, and writes to the ZIL? I have a seocnd identical SSD I wanted to 
> add as a mirror, but it seems pointless if there's no zip to be had....
> 
> help?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tracey
> -- 
> This message posted from opensolaris.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