> > > At present, I do not see async write QoS as being interesting. That leaves > sync writes and reads > as the managed I/O. Unfortunately, with HDDs, the variance in response > time >> queue management > time, so the results are less useful than the case with SSDs. Control > theory works, once again. > For sync writes, they are often latency-sensitive and thus have the > highest priority. Reads have > lower priority, with prefetch reads at lower priority still. > > This makes sense for the most part, and i agree that with spinning HDDs there might be minimal benefit. It is why I suggested that ARC/L2ARC might be the reasonable starting place for an idea like this because the latencies are orders of magnitude lower. Perhaps i'm looking for a way to modify the prefetch to have a higher priority when the system is under some threshold.
> > On a related note (maybe?) I would love to see pool-wide settings that > control how aggressively data is added/removed form ARC, L2ARC, etc. > > Evictions are done on an as-needed basis. Why would you want to evict more > than needed? > So you could fetch it again? > > Prefetching can be more aggressive, but we actually see busy systems > disabling prefetch to > improve interactive performance. Queuing theory works, once again. > > It's not that I want evictions to occur for no reason... only that the rate be accelerated if there is contention. If I recall correctly, ZFS has some default values included that throttle how quickly the ACR/L2ARC are updated, and the explanation I read was it was due to SSDs 6+ years ago were not capable of the IOPS and throughput that they are today. I know that ZFS has a prefetch capability but have seen fairly little written about it, are there any good references you can point me to better understand it? In particular I would like to see some kind of measurement on my systems showing how often this capability is utilized. > Something that would accelerate the warming of a cold pool of storage or > be more aggressive in adding/removing cached data on a volatile dataset > (e.g. where Virtual Machines are turned on/off frequently). I have heard > that some of these defaults might be changed in some future release of > Illumos, but haven't seen any specifics saying that the idea is nearing > fruition in release XYZ. > > It is easy to warm data (dd), even to put it into MFU (dd + dd). For best > performance with > VMs, MFU works extremely well, especially with clones. > I'm unclear on the best way to warm data... do you mean to simply `dd if=/volumes/myvol/data of=/dev/null`? I have always been under the impression that ARC/L2ARC has rate limiting how much data can be added to the cache per interval (i can't remember the interval). Is this not the case? If there is some rate limiting in place, dd-ing the data like my example above would not necessarily cache all of the data... it might take several iterations to populate the cache, correct? Forgive my naivete, but when I look at my pool when it is under random load and see a heavy load hitting the spinning disk vdevs and relatively little on my L2ARC SSDs I wonder how to better utilize their performance. I would think that if my L2ARC is not yet full and it has very low IOPS/throughput/busy/wait, then ZFS should use that opportunity to populate the cache aggressively based on the MRU or some other mechanism. Sorry to digress from the original thread!
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss