Re: ZFS on high-latency devices

From: Johannes Totz <johannes_at_jo-t.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 15:30:18 +0100
On 28/08/2021 04:37, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2021-Aug-20 00:16:28 +0100, Johannes Totz <johannes_at_jo-t.de> wrote:
>> Do you have geli included in those perf tests? Any difference if you
>> leave it out?
> 
> Yes, I mentioned geli (and I also have IPSEC, which I forgot to
> mention).  I haven't tried taking them out but dd(1) tests suggest
> they aren't a problem.
> 
>> What's making the throughout slow? zfs issuing a bunch of small writes
>> and then trying to read something (unrelated)? Is there just not enough
>> data to be written to saturate the link?
> 
> At least from eyeballing gstat, there are basically no reads involved
> in the zfs recv. The problem seems to be that writes aren't evenly
> spread across all the vdevs, combined with very long delays associated
> with flushing snapshots.  I have considered instrumenting ggate{c,d}
> to see if I can identify any issues.

Hm... that makes me wonder: what's your pool layout? Is the ggate vdev 
the only one, or is it a mirror member (and the others are local)?

>> Totally random thought: there used to be a vdev cache (not sure if
>> that's still around) that would inflate read requests to hopefully drag
>> in more data that might be useful soon.
> 
> ZFS includes that functionality itself.
> 
>> Have you tried hastd?
> 
> I haven't but hastd also uses GEOM_GATE so I wouldn't expect
> significantly different behaviour.

I wouldn't have expected geom-gate to have much of an impact here but 
instead what happens with the requests once they are in user mode, ie 
how they are send across the wire. Looks like hastd does something fancy 
here (I've never used it myself).

But I wonder now... ggatec does not support flush requests. Have you 
patched it already? How does zfs behave (or change its behaviour) if 
BIO_FLUSH succeeds?
Received on Mon Aug 30 2021 - 14:30:18 UTC

Original text of this message