`<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Richard. Thank you very much for your answer.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10. 04. 2015 17:19, Richard Elling
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>[sidebar conversation: I've experienced bad results with WD
Black 4TB SAS drives]</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What kind of bad results? What drives do you use now or what do you
recommend? I was thinking of going with HGST anyway, since they got
a good reputation on Backblaze reports.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>But the more interesting question is: where do you plan to
measure the IOPS? The backend stats</div>
<div>as seen by iostat and zpool iostat are difficult to use
because they do not account for caching and</div>
<div>the writes are coalesced. Write coalescing is particularly
important for people who insist on counting</div>
<div>IOPS because, by default, 32 4KB random write IOPS will be
coalesced into one 128KB write. Let's</div>
<div>take a closer look at your data...</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Thank you for explaining this. A lot clearer now.<br>
Where are write ops coalesced? In memory/ZIL? In drive cache? <br>
<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> Output from
iostat -vx (only some drives are pasted):<br class="">
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px" class="">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Code:</div>
<pre class="alt2" dir="ltr" style="
margin: 0px;
padding: 6px;
border: 1px inset;
width: 1000px;
height: 242px;
text-align: left;
overflow: auto">device r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
data 36621,9 25740,2 19288,6 66191,0 197,6 25,9 3,6 40 77
sd18 276,3 104,8 145,2 83,3 0,0 0,6 1,5 0 36
</pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>This version of iostat doesn't show average sizes :-( but
you can calculate them from the data :-)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Is there a version that does that? I see they can be calculated, but
it might be nice to see results right there:)<br>
Is it in official repo or do I have to get it somewhere else?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>From this we can suggest:</div>
<div>1. avoid 4KB sector sized disks for this configuration and
workload</div>
<div>2. look further up the stack to determine why such small
physical I/Os are being used</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I will take a look at the enterprise drives, but I think most of
them are still 512b. I will be on alert when ordering the new
drives.<br>
As far as looking up the stack, where can I look for that? Is there
something that can be done on the server itself or do I have to
check that on iscsi clients?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">Is it just
me, or are there too much IOPS for those drive to handle
even in theory, let alone in practice? How to get the
right measurement?<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>To measure IOPS written into the pool, look at fsstat for
file systems. For iSCSI, this isn't</div>
<div>quite so easy to gather, so we use dtrace, see iscsisvrtop
as an example.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Looking at iscsivrtop, I see around 260 r ops(10MB/s) and 140 w
ops(14MB/s) total:<br>
client ops reads writes nops rd_bw wr_bw
ard_sz awr_sz rd_t wr_t nop_t align%<br>
xxx.xxx.140.38 70 49 21 0 498
2201 1 10 6 6154 0 100<br>
xxx.xxx.57.158 114 38 67 0 1210
7699 3 11 58 697704 0 100<br>
xxx.xxx.7.3 233 188 46 0 9240
1241 4 2 5235 11183 0 100<br>
all 446 284 148 0 11204
12641 3 8 3453 326634 0 0<br>
<br>
Why are numbers here smaller then the one reported by 'iostat' and
'zpool iostat'?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Unfortunately, most versions of arcstat do not measure what
you want to know. The measurement</div>
<div>you're looking for is the reason for eviction. These are
measured as kstats:</div>
<div># kstat -p ::arcstats:evict_l2\*<br class="">
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_cached 0<br class="">
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_eligible 2224128<br class="">
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_ineligible 4096<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div>For this example system, you can see:</div>
<div>+ nothing is in the L2 cache (mostly, because there is no
L2 :-)</div>
<div>+ 2224128 ARC evictions were eligible to be satisfied from
an L2 cache</div>
<div>+ 4096 ARC evictions were not eligible</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>This example system can benefit from an L2 cache.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm not sure if I understand this.<br>
What does evict_l2_eligible and evict_l2_ineligible mean?<br>
<br>
'ARC evictions were eligible to be satisfied from an L2 cache'
<-- 2224128 arc evictions would be moved to l2 and serviced from
l2 arc, so l2 arc would help in 2224128 cases?<br>
If that is the case, eligible value needs to be high for l2 to make
sense?<br>
<br>
This are the stats from our server:<br>
kstat -p ::arcstats:evict_l2\*<br>
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_cached 10717615626752<br>
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_eligible 13868417704448<br>
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_ineligible 8230791512064<br>
zfs:0:arcstats:evict_l2_skip 174367<br>
<br>
What do those stats tell me? Eligible counter is high, is it safe to
assume, bigger l2 cache would help us?<br>
Would it be better to add more vdev's instead of bigger l2 cache?<br>
<br class="">
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> <b class="">3.)</b><br
class="">
As far as ZIL goes, do we need it? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>From the data below, yes, it will help</div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> Output from
'zilstat':<br class="">
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px" class="">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Code:</div>
<pre class="alt2" dir="ltr" style="
margin: 0px;
padding: 6px;
border: 1px inset;
width: 1000px;
height: 290px;
text-align: left;
overflow: auto"> N-Bytes N-Bytes/s N-Max-Rate B-Bytes B-Bytes/s B-Max-Rate ops <=4kB 4-32kB >=32kB
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178352 178352 178352 262144 262144 262144 2 0 0 2
134823992 134823992 134823992 221380608 221380608 221380608 1689 0 0 1689
102893848 102893848 102893848 168427520 168427520 168427520 1285 0 0 1285
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4472 4472 4472 131072 131072 131072 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41904 41904 41904 262144 262144 262144 2 0 0 2
134963824 134963824 134963824 221511680 221511680 221511680 1690 0 0 1690
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32789896 32789896 32789896 53346304 53346304 53346304 407 0 0 407
25467912 25467912 25467912 41811968 41811968 41811968 319 0 0 319</pre>
</div>
Given the stats, is ZIL even necessary? When I'm running
zilstat, I see big ops every 5s. Why is that? I know
system is suppose to flush data from memory to spindles
every 5s, but that shouldn't be seen as ZIL flush, is that
correct?<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
Would you be so kind and interpret the data a bit. What can I see
and what can I gather from this data?<br>
What are N-bytes and B-bytes?<br>
What I see here are writes directly to ZIL and data are only written
to ZIL, if I set sync option to always or if iscsi client mounts
it's device with sync options, right?<br>
Would you consider this zil as a big performance benefit for our
system or would it be better to spent money on more vdev's?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B9F085D8-DF33-44B4-B0B8-68FD1485F6FA@richardelling.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> <br
class="">
<b class="">5.)</b><br class="">
In case we decide to go with 4 JBOD cases, would it be
better to build 2 pools, just so that in case 1 pool has a
hickup, we won't loose all data?<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>This is a common configuration: two SAS pools + two servers
configured such that either server can </div>
<div>serve the pool.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
How do you usually achieve that? Do you also use RSF-1 software or
do you use other solutions?<br>
<br>
Matej<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
`