From nobody Wed Feb 22 19:58:36 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4PMRmh1g59z3s7TY for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:58:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us) Received: from smtp.simplesystems.org (smtp.simplesystems.org [65.66.246.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PMRmg4lwmz3FKL for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:58:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from scrappy.simplesystems.org (scrappy.simplesystems.org [65.66.246.73]) by smtp.simplesystems.org (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 31MJwaJs027265; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:58:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:58:36 -0600 (CST) From: Bob Friesenhahn X-X-Sender: bfriesen@scrappy.simplesystems.org To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> cc: freebsd-fs Subject: Re: speeding up zfs send | recv (update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <866d6937-a4e8-bec3-d61b-07df3065fca9@sentex.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (GSO 67 2015-01-07) List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (smtp.simplesystems.org [65.66.246.90]); Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:58:36 -0600 (CST) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4PMRmg4lwmz3FKL X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7018, ipnet:65.64.0.0/13, country:US] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > I am facing similar problem with low performance of zfs send over network. I > have 2 machines in two different datacenters, both have 1Gbps NIC and I would > like to saturate the network but it seems impossible even if "everything" > seem to have enough unused resources. Have you tried doing your zfs send locally and send the output to /dev/null? Is the speed much faster than when sending over the network? Does 'zpool scrub' perform well for your pool? Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ Public Key, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/public-key.txt