zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache?

[Steven Hartland]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jhell" <jhell at DataIX.net>

>> Will see what happens with stable tomorrow though :)
> 
> Good luck Steve, Look forward to hearing the result. If you are happy
> with the result you get from stable/8 I would reccommend patching to v15
> which is much more stable than the v14 code.

No joy I'm afraid still the same:-

ARC Size:
        Current Size:                   57.14%  2047.91M (arcsize)
        Target Size: (Adaptive)         57.14%  2048.00M (c)
        Min Size (Hard Limit):          57.14%  2048.00M (c_min)
        Max Size (High Water):          ~1:1    3584.00M (c_max)

Mem: 104M Active, 1185M Inact, 2452M Wired, 268K Cache, 418M Buf, 202M Free
Swap: 4096M Total, 1112K Used, 4095M Free

> The specific patches you would want are: (in order)
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v15/stable-8-v15.patch
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_metaslab_v2.patch
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_abe_stat_rrwlock.patch
> and then the needfree.patch I already posted.
> 
> The maxusers.patch being optional.

Can do this but do we believe this will have any impact on the problem?

    Regards
    Steve

================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. 

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337
or return the E.mail to postmaster at multiplay.co.uk.