From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 15 20:05:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014891065670 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:05:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9BF8FC19 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:05:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id XAA15945; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:05:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OvyEG-00018A-Ex; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:05:16 +0300 Message-ID: <4C9126FB.2020707@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:05:15 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100912 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><4C85E91E.1010602@icyb.net.ua><4C873914.40404@freebsd.org><20100908084855.GF2465@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua><4C874F00.3050605@freebsd.org><4C8D087B.5040404@freebsd.org><03537796FAB54E02959E2D64FC83004F@multiplay.co.uk><4C8D280F.3040803@freebsd.org><3FBF66BF11AA4CBBA6124CA435A4A31B@multiplay.co.uk><4C8E4212.30000@freebsd.org> <4C90B4C8.90203@freebsd.org> <6DFACB27CA8A4A22898BC81E55C4FD36@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90D3A1.7030008@freebsd.org> <0B1A90A08DFE4ADA9540F9F3846FDF38@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90EDB8.3040709@freebsd.org> <3F29E8CED7B24805B2D93F62A4EC9559@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3F29E8CED7B24805B2D93F62A4EC9559@multiplay.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:05:20 -0000 on 15/09/2010 23:00 Steven Hartland said the following: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" >> Or even try the opposite, if your version of ZFS permits it. >> You can set primarycache=metadata on the filesystem where you have the data that >> you serve via sendfile. With that setting it shouldn't get cached in ARC, but it >> should be still cached in VM cache, so you should get UFS-like behavior. >> >> Will you test it? :) > > Ok given this a whirl, don't have the full results just yet but does seem that > buf cache is not > used at all? > > Mem: 32M Active, 1378M Inact, 159M Wired, 120K Cache, 21M Buf, 5348M Free > Swap: 4096M Total, 4096M Free This was with sendfile enabled? -- Andriy Gapon