From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 05:40:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4966226; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356846BE; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id bs8so9382357wib.5; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TYfeKmNSf2onnVhAIJddaJMwmYBpZElFVcKdPC0lNxQ=; b=XFUJbfkBZRua5jk9yQd59evGDscZskmWsdKAv9DZj1X9HH5K+gNzhkk5+xzfM1gg8D Sjx6qbHaO6E+z09XGtOQI09o6z21bFOXP/aEMZwglUicpjGSpC0Xzzbf10NQQSgC48Uv hVKrwkYnCtsjRWO5+f1pG1eJYdCG6nuWip2DOQYaxhmVTqZZ3yESeNQmx1kMlOrX4UEv n5tGEo82TNM93CN6NNPsV4HLsloq/IaTZ922Ku4pIB3frLOYHUpHnmzSZtr9/xnAqHkL saDycMWmmMwRtjdvGZPf50iv2WyHSK2AQnNbyRogrlrhnxUajcDj+UEqVxLnYxuL9/G/ lvUw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.198.164 with SMTP id jd4mr27839128wic.42.1418622043689; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.106.134 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141208153925.5df90587@prometheus> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:40:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit? From: grarpamp To: FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD Mailing Lists , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:40:45 -0000 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote: > Yes, Haswell has an additional store addr but still only one store data unit. > > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521.html > > But I guess they'd argue that they meant to saturate memory > channels with all available cores as possible first, and additional > threads are only for last resort. And that's probably what the most > schedulers do. > > I benchmarked it on a 4th gen i3. Buildkernel got 5~10% benefit IIRC. > The best way to tell is still to conduct tests with your own workload. > If the claimed 5% transistor cost brings 10% benefits, that's already > a win. OTTH how much you paid for it is another story. Where is the claim of "5% transistor cost" from? I don't see it linked in this thread. Is it in terms of $ as a sales feature to get HT/SMT, or transistor count to get it? I think SMT transistor count could change over CPU generations optimized. Any bump in price to get HT, is amortized over time. Any bump in performance due to HT, is integrated over time. A watt costs about $1/yr. If SMT is 5% faster, over 4hr saves 12 minutes of your time, which saves $n/day, which more than pays for purchase and watts. If it is slower, it hurts similarly $hard unless you turn it off and eat its purchase difference. Thus to see what people were seeing perf wise. From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 17 20:15:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C886D33; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smarthost.sentex.ca", Issuer "smarthost.sentex.ca" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE2615B4; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBHKFZwM068670; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:15:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <5491E462.2020902@sentex.net> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:15:30 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" , freebsd-questions Subject: zfs and 512/4096 sector sizes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:15:36 -0000 On a remote server, I replaced a dead 2TB disk with a new one that had 4096K sectors. 2014-12-11.22:40:30 zpool replace -f tank1 16144392433229115618 /dev/ada0 My ZFS pool then warned me after pool: tank1 state: ONLINE status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block size. Expect reduced performance. action: Replace affected devices with devices that support the configured block size, or migrate data to a properly configured pool. Camcontrol and smartctl confirm the 2TB drive was indeed 4096. (All my previous ones were 512, so didnt think to check) # camcontrol identify ada0 | grep secto sectors/track 63 sector size logical 512, physical 4096, offset 0 LBA supported 268435455 sectors LBA48 supported 3907029168 sectors # smartctl -a /dev/ada0 | grep -i 512 Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical So, with a new drive, I replaced the 4096 drive 2014-12-16.17:07:14 zpool replace tank1 ada0 ada11 # smartctl -a /dev/ada11 | grep -i 512 Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical # camcontrol identify ada11 | grep -i sector sectors/track 63 sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0 LBA supported 268435455 sectors LBA48 supported 3907029168 sectors yet, zfs is still complaining # zpool status pool: tank1 state: ONLINE status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block size. Expect reduced performance. action: Replace affected devices with devices that support the configured block size, or migrate data to a properly configured pool. scan: resilvered 898G in 8h4m with 0 errors on Wed Dec 17 15:01:18 2014 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank1 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada12 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada10 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada6 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada14 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada11 ONLINE 0 0 0 block size: 512B configured, 4096B native ada1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada8 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada9 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-2 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada13 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada4 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada5 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada7 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zdb | grep -i shift metaslab_shift: 35 ashift: 9 metaslab_shift: 35 ashift: 9 metaslab_shift: 35 ashift: 9 This is RELENG_9 r275680 Any ideas if the reporting is cosmetic ? Or there is an issue Sorry for the xpost as this is sort of both a hardware and config issue. ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 17 23:13:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEC53569; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C312EE9E; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.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 BAA03144; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:14:51 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Y1Nm4-000Jyi-LH; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:12:56 +0200 Message-ID: <54920DC0.8030200@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:12:00 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Tancsa , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" , freebsd-questions Subject: Re: zfs and 512/4096 sector sizes References: <5491E462.2020902@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <5491E462.2020902@sentex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:13:02 -0000 On 17/12/2014 22:15, Mike Tancsa wrote: > On a remote server, I replaced a dead 2TB disk with a new one that had 4096K > sectors. > > 2014-12-11.22:40:30 zpool replace -f tank1 16144392433229115618 /dev/ada0 > > > My ZFS pool then warned me after > > pool: tank1 > state: ONLINE > status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block size. > Expect reduced performance. > action: Replace affected devices with devices that support the > configured block size, or migrate data to a properly configured > pool. > > Camcontrol and smartctl confirm the 2TB drive was indeed 4096. (All my previous > ones were 512, so didnt think to check) > > # camcontrol identify ada0 | grep secto > sectors/track 63 > sector size logical 512, physical 4096, offset 0 > LBA supported 268435455 sectors > LBA48 supported 3907029168 sectors > > # smartctl -a /dev/ada0 | grep -i 512 > Sector Sizes: 512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical > > So, with a new drive, I replaced the 4096 drive > > 2014-12-16.17:07:14 zpool replace tank1 ada0 ada11 > > # smartctl -a /dev/ada11 | grep -i 512 > Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical > # camcontrol identify ada11 | grep -i sector > sectors/track 63 > sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0 > LBA supported 268435455 sectors > LBA48 supported 3907029168 sectors > > yet, zfs is still complaining Does zpool clear help in this situation? -- Andriy Gapon From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 18 14:41:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A780C29; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smarthost.sentex.ca", Issuer "smarthost.sentex.ca" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618E9244F; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBIEfveG078395; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:41:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <5492E7AE.9010901@sentex.net> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:41:50 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andriy Gapon , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" , freebsd-questions Subject: Re: zfs and 512/4096 sector sizes References: <5491E462.2020902@sentex.net> <54920DC0.8030200@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54920DC0.8030200@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:41:58 -0000 On 12/17/2014 6:12 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> yet, zfs is still complaining > > Does zpool clear help in this situation? > Looks like a reboot was needed to fix the issue. # zpool status pool: tank1 state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 898G in 8h4m with 0 errors on Wed Dec 17 15:01:18 2014 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank1 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada12 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada10 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada6 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada14 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada11 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada8 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada9 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-2 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada13 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada4 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada5 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada7 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 04:45:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB90FBF; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9C4209D; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l13so99624iga.9; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:45:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OK9TU41ESR4Dvyo5cPoFAtbfQRQtvowXHRI5VUbfZPw=; b=mJdJ8fpbiPstrwrCkopLKwrurUtKqJwwKv105EGOnKtaHjhmvWEk5B6s+jhSAZ61YR UPJq04sPb0B6nkUmUX3XfgrX+fgR2Pi3us0N44yr5/zE5Gtl+wDmjmUvhl3/Wk5nrM1N ME1f3dE74OJSldSb9OH55xMiTd/msAZfgiX9NPiKvBWduNJbgKwZTeDap2eUelNTyFSV ArCxTe+79RJNb6qR2+v5SKbCf00sr+We9QeAov7n+H9kYtdbRQEn/MqRicWp4AHWdV3L mDcjOm3NTNFRDMU0dGuOKnh9tPtDpm7mDNUkCcgJlhHx9IXuxiIOzM0FPjL6IZdtK1zp Hmqw== X-Received: by 10.107.154.198 with SMTP id c189mr5657499ioe.68.1418964305532; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:45:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.175.4 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:44:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141208153925.5df90587@prometheus> From: Jia-Shiun Li Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:44:35 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit? To: grarpamp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD Mailing Lists , FreeBSD Questions , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:45:06 -0000 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM, grarpamp wrote: > Thus to see what people were seeing perf wise. HTT good for *some* workload? Definitely yes. HTT good for yours? It depends. It is not a solution to boost everything. You really need your own evaluation methods for your own real world workload. See if this extreme case motivates you. Script started on Fri Dec 19 04:11:36 2014 root@:~ # uname -a FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r275582: Sun Dec 7 22:29:51 UTC 2014 root@grind.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 root@:~ # sysctl hw.model hw.model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz root@:~ # sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 3600 root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc (...) type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-cbc 542270.57k 570008.23k 577700.69k 579443.71k 578661.43k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc -multi 4 (...) evp 2168111.69k 2283320.41k 2309259.69k 2314799.72k 2323428.69k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc -multi 8 (...) evp 3720872.65k 4373485.85k 4564089.08k 4615834.28k 4621740.71k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm (...) type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-gcm 372850.59k 941017.15k 1402284.69k 1518668.74k 1552422.23k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm -multi 4 (...) evp 1492887.94k 3132772.74k 4501002.29k 4929483.52k 5101510.17k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm -multi 8 (...) evp 1924978.05k 4533256.96k 6764018.70k 7538217.64k 7985778.30k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-ctr (...) type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-ctr 491349.11k 1550444.11k 2372213.47k 2755245.59k 2879939.33k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-ctr -multi 4 (...) evp 1871084.37k 4992105.40k 7707692.29k 10242874.37k 10744955.05k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-ctr -multi 8 (...) evp 2678304.52k 7575305.94k 11861913.17k 12971657.56k 13356457.98k root@:~ # ^D exit Script done on Fri Dec 19 04:16:08 2014 -Jia-Shiun. From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 07:35:37 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1B52EE; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:35:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B121418D3; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:35:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id n3so800782wiv.13; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ossn9MHsboVbJB4H2Uf60yLJunEBdg6fabX+dggLGZg=; b=tuFklD2Sg5gLbl45UetGNbSETT4/5NAIfzfk6AdaLcLcUuDK4vi+w+uvGaGCLFwsMJ 970iFUwFrpnHEPsqNjp2uw99dgfYq+W7uwsawD7Ga7FXx2HGLGdHxsD2LhSzrMA0ge80 V8eNCIcDHnHwMIJjE7xJH5wMUwbt0gyYJRSC63pl7cWjfmpALBPVhXc1NXGOrRW4yUsF Pa9T5B7h4iUhd7Cyra/cuUnPgPYweZWTkyV2pm9kqyIFHUwb+UXwMTyXSS5CkO3P5aNV j42ICC2Dt0hpeoUHKPZ8OX6xIn+KIO5EZH02ctoHRwrd/2DE6egxrlCXV7+y9AM1iUbw ObCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.92.37 with SMTP id cj5mr11731812wjb.81.1418974535090; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.106.134 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141208153925.5df90587@prometheus> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:35:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit? From: grarpamp To: FreeBSD Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD Questions , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:35:37 -0000 On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote: > You really need your own evaluation methods for your own real world workload. Of course. Yet many users here might like to compare common things: o make buildworld times o iozone if disks are not limiting factor o openssl speed as below o etc > See if this extreme case motivates you. Not much since it provides no information regarding HTT. It doesn't, at minimum: o State whether HTT was on or off. o Show the results of two runs, one with HTT on, one with HTT off. From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 14:37:25 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF39560; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yh0-x22a.google.com (mail-yh0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDBB42287; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yh0-f42.google.com with SMTP id v1so432651yhn.1; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 06:37:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=WqnMfeocu0NGNpvsjE0W1siogqo/tiVIL8fLNsIiQUk=; b=POzrnnm5fEDxK3zgnyHmIkYE9wTXiKcQTRMJlP9eYDKNdMgfoC4fzEPlyqNWL8e8Va pnkfQyiXsHwVbttmBnf6kUUmRA+j4HhgA1w0BOSZbqV002vBsXNtIOrkQcx0XY8yn91S fGfTcAdPeNyqJkdmQ1iqe1qz1PosVOQr4rDc4vPA5CNH7Ybz7DIfzIsWKk1CaXrcePA3 v7iDgQocGOsswJalNpOajH2RlnV0/DkGPWznsJ7UX29xCU/QvlD+t8OvJ19uDbVbnE5O NCIJVhWHQi6N6TGrdD4/lmJZalrvTyRd/4f6CRxLe64b5iupNC2rjLREVZ3iAUKNMlEE VeLQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.134.72 with SMTP id a69mr7460827ykc.103.1418999843938; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 06:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.170.188.144 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 06:37:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5492E7AE.9010901@sentex.net> References: <5491E462.2020902@sentex.net> <54920DC0.8030200@FreeBSD.org> <5492E7AE.9010901@sentex.net> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:37:23 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: zfs and 512/4096 sector sizes From: krad To: Mike Tancsa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: freebsd-questions , Andriy Gapon , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:37:25 -0000 If you do every rebuild the pool for whatever reason, make sure yor create it with ashift=12. We so many drives its an inevitability at some point you will be forced down the 4k drive path, so its best to prepare for it as soon as you can, and save some head aches in the future On 18 December 2014 at 14:41, Mike Tancsa wrote: > On 12/17/2014 6:12 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> >>> yet, zfs is still complaining >>> >> >> Does zpool clear help in this situation? >> >> > > Looks like a reboot was needed to fix the issue. > > # zpool status > pool: tank1 > state: ONLINE > scan: resilvered 898G in 8h4m with 0 errors on Wed Dec 17 15:01:18 2014 > config: > > NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > tank1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada12 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada10 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada6 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada14 ONLINE 0 0 0 > raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada11 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada8 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada9 ONLINE 0 0 0 > raidz1-2 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada13 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada4 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada5 ONLINE 0 0 0 > ada7 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > errors: No known data errors > > > > > -- > ------------------- > Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 > Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net > Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net > Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- > unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >