Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:01:57 +0100 From: Oliver Brandmueller <ob@e-Gitt.NET> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the default Message-ID: <20111222160157.GB34540@e-Gitt.NET> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndBSOS3hKYqmPnVkoMhPmowBBqy9-%2BeJJEMTdoVjdMTEdw@mail.gmail.com> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndBSOS3hKYqmPnVkoMhPmowBBqy9-%2BeJJEMTdoVjdMTEdw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > If someone else thinks he has a specific problem that is not > characterized by one of the cases above please let me know and I will > put this in the chart. It seems I stumbled over another thing. Setup: 2 Servers providing devices by ggated, 1 Server using ggatec for those devices. ZFS over each a pair of disks provided by both ggated servers. I use rsync to fill up the 6 zpools/zfs from an existing storage (2 TB zpools, about 500 to 700 GiB user per pool). 2 rsyncs running in parallel to fill the partitions. Main server (ggate client with ZFS and rsync) has an Intel Xeon X3450 2.66 GHz quadcore processor (+HTT or whatever it's called nowadays, gives 8 "cpus" in FreeBSD). With ULE ZFS gets slower after some time and finally gets stuck after 1 to 3 days of continouus synchronisation (ggate works like a charm as far as I can tell), with 4BSD (online since 6 days) the rsync seems to run a lot faster and I didn't get ZFS to stall. There's nearly no local I/O (system is on a local SSD) and the load/CPU usage are not actually high. All is running a quite recent RELENG_9 If anyone's interested I can get more detail and carry out some tests. - Oliver -- | Oliver Brandmueller http://sysadm.in/ ob@sysadm.in | | Ich bin das Internet. Sowahr ich Gott helfe. |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111222160157.GB34540>