2012-03-18 23:47, Richard Elling wrote:

Yes, it is wrong to think that.

Ok, thanks, we won't try that :)

copy out, copy in. Whether this is easy or not depends on how well
you plan your storage use ...

Home users and personal budgets do tend to have a problem
with planning. Any mistake is to be paid for personally,
and many are left "as is". It is is hard enough already
to justify to an average wife that "a storage box with
large X-Tb disks needs raidz3 or mirroring" and thus
becomes larger and noisier, not to mention almost a
thousand bucks more expensive just for the redundancy
disks, but it will become two times cheaper in a year.

Yup, it is not very easy to find another 10+Tb backup
storage (with ZFS reliability) in a typical home I know
of. Planning is not easy...

But that's a rant... Hoping that in-place BP Rewrite
would arrive and magically solve many problems =)

Questions are:
1) How bad would a performance hit be with 512b blocks used
on a 4kb drive with such "efficient emulation"?

Depends almost exclusively on the workload and hardware. In my
experience, most folks who bite the 4KB bullet have low-cost HDDs
where one cannot reasonably expect high performance.

Is it
possible to model/emulate the situation somehow in advance
to see if it's worth that change at all?

It will be far more cost effective to just make the change.

Meaning altogether? That with consumer disk which will suck
from performance standpoint anyway, it was not a good idea
to use ashift=12 and it was more cost effective to remain
at ashift=9, to begin with?

What about real-people's tests which seemed to show that
there were substantial performance hits with misaligned
large-block writes (spanning several 4k sectors at wrong

I had an RFE posted sometime last year about making an
optimisation for both worlds: use formal ashift=9 and allow
writing of small blocks, but align larger blocks at set
boundaries (i.e. offset divisible by 4096 for blocks sized
4096+). Perhaps writing of 512b blocks near each other
should only be reserved for metadata which is dittoed
anyway, so that a whole-sector (4kb) corruption won't
be irreversible for some data. In effect, minblocksize
for userdata would be enforced (by config) at the same
4kb in such case.

This is a zfs-write only change (and some custom pool
or dataset attributes), so the on-disk format and
compatibility should not suffer with this solution.
But I had little feedback whether the idea was at
all reasonable.

2) Is it possible to easily estimate the amount of "wasted"
disk space in slack areas of the currently active ZFS
allocation (unused portions of 4kb blocks that might
become available if the disks were reused with ashift=9)?

Detailed space use is available from the zfs_blkstats mdb macro
as previously described in such threads.

3) How many parts of ZFS pool are actually affected by the
ashift setting?

Everything is impacted. But that isn't a useful answer.

From what I gather, it is applied at the top-level vdev
level (I read that one can mix ashift=9 and ashift=12
TLVDEVs in one pool spanning several TLVDEVs). Is that
a correct impression?


If yes, how does ashift size influence the amount of
slots in uberblock ring (128 vs. 32 entries) which is
applied at the leaf vdev level (right?) but should be
consistent across the pool?

It should be consistent across the top-level vdev.

There is 128KB of space available for the uberblock list. The minimum
size of an uberblock entry is 1KB. Obviously, a 4KB disk can't write
only 1KB,
so for 4KB sectors, there are 32 entries in theuberblock list.

So if I have ashift=12 and ashift=9 top-level devices
mixed in the pool, it is okay that some of them would
remember 4x more of pool's TXG history than others?

As far as I see in ZFS on-disk format, all sizes and
offsets are in either bytes or 512b blocks, and the
ashift'ed block size is not actually used anywhere
except to set the minimal block size and its implicit
alignment during writes.

The on-disk format doc is somewhat dated and unclear here. UTSL.

Are there any updates, or the 2006 pdf is the latest available?
For example, is there an effort in illumos/nexenta/openindiana
to publish their version of the current on-disk format? ;)

Thanks for all the answers,

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to