Performance difference between UFS and ZFS with NFS

[Eric Browning]

@Rick R
I will check on controller caching, I just left the defaults so I assume
they are on and had cache flushing disabled already for ZFS.

@Jason F.
Changing to Solaris isn't an option right now and knowing Mac is a kissing
cousin of FreeBSD I prefer to stay with what I know.  It's been pretty rock
solid so far.

Thanks,


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Rick Romero <rick at havokmon.com> wrote:

>
> Quoting Eric Browning <ericbrowning at skaggscatholiccenter.org>:
>
>
>  Right now I'm going to have to abandon ZFS until it works with NFS.  I
>> don't want to get into a finger pointing game, I'd just like to help get
>> this fixed, I have one old i386 server I can try things out on if that
>> helps and it's already on 9 stable and ZFS v28.
>>
>
> When you created the raid0, did you leave the disk cache enabled?  I know
> it's against the purpose of ZFS to leave the controller and drive caches
> enabled, but it sure improves performance.
>
> In both our cases, (IIRC)NFS will also wait for that commit response - so
> if the caches are disabled, NFS really begins to drag. I believe there was
> a commit in 9.2 that allowed modification of a sysctl to disable/change the
> NFS commit... in some manner.. I forget exactly.. they all tie in together.
>
> Also disable the cache flushing.
> See https://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide
> And http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-30856.html
>
>
> Rick
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>



-- 
Eric Browning
Systems Administrator
801-984-7623

Skaggs Catholic Center
Juan Diego Catholic High School
Saint John the Baptist Middle
Saint John the Baptist Elementary