ZFS write perf - not equal to iostat

Discussion in 'Linux Admins, Storage and Virtualization' started by Grohnheit, Apr 29, 2018.

  1. Grohnheit

    Grohnheit New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi.

    This is my first proper forum post. I just want to thank you all, I have been reading a lot on these forums and getting a lot of help. I hope you can help me with this issue, so I can get a little more speed out of my new server :)

    I have just setup a new media server / lab server for my home.
    This is my first Proxmox / ZFS build, so I am very green, so please forgive me if I am asking a rookie question.
    I did spend a lot of time reading online before I went with this setup, and it have paid of so far :)

    Quick specs of new server.
    Supermicro H11SSL-NC
    EPYC 7351p
    64GB ECC RAM
    LSI9201 HBA for HDDs
    2 x Samsung 850 Evo 500GB SSDs for boot and VM OS.
    1 x Intel Optane 900p 280GB for SLOG and fun (or l2arc if it makes sense at some point)
    8 x Seagate archive 8TB super slow SMR drives. (When I am done migrating data, I will add 8 more, witch will double the speed, I hope)

    The HDDs are running in a raidz2. I made a 30GB partition on the optane, and are using it for (S)LOG.

    I am running a single Windows Server VM on top of all this, and this will function as my DC and file server.

    I have started migration of 25TB data, and the performance is around 25-30 MB/s according to Windows and Proxmox. (both network and disk io)

    But when I look at iostat from the Proxmox / ZFS server, I see bandwidth writes around 80 MB/s when sync=standard, and around 60 MB/s when sync=disabled.

    I am using the virtio drivers for both scsi and nics.
    in Proxmox the disk is using the default cache setting.
    I tried copying some data to the C drive (the SSDs), and performance here is much better of cource, but I see the same thing. The Windows copy shows 70 MB/s, and iostat reports around 220 MB/s.

    So did i skrew up some where? or is iostat just reporting false numbers? (I use zpool iostat 60)
    The files I am copying are big media files.

    I used ashift=12 when i created the pool.

    my config:
    root@host01:~# zfs get all
    NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
    data01 type filesystem -
    data01 creation Sat Apr 28 9:56 2018 -
    data01 used 30.4T -
    data01 available 9.56T -
    data01 referenced 205K -
    data01 compressratio 1.00x -
    data01 mounted yes -
    data01 quota none default
    data01 reservation none default
    data01 recordsize 1M local
    data01 mountpoint /data01 default
    data01 sharenfs off default
    data01 checksum on default
    data01 compression on local
    data01 atime off local
    data01 devices on default
    data01 exec on default
    data01 setuid on default
    data01 readonly off default
    data01 zoned off default
    data01 snapdir hidden default
    data01 aclinherit restricted default
    data01 createtxg 1 -
    data01 canmount on default
    data01 xattr sa local
    data01 copies 1 default
    data01 version 5 -
    data01 utf8only off -
    data01 normalization none -
    data01 casesensitivity sensitive -
    data01 vscan off default
    data01 nbmand off default
    data01 sharesmb off default
    data01 refquota none default
    data01 refreservation none default
    data01 guid 3930392171083245452 -
    data01 primarycache all default
    data01 secondarycache all default
    data01 usedbysnapshots 0B -
    data01 usedbydataset 205K -
    data01 usedbychildren 30.4T -
    data01 usedbyrefreservation 0B -
    data01 logbias latency local
    data01 dedup off default
    data01 mlslabel none default
    data01 sync standard local
    data01 dnodesize legacy default
    data01 refcompressratio 1.00x -
    data01 written 205K -
    data01 logicalused 1.46T -
    data01 logicalreferenced 40K -
    data01 volmode default default
    data01 filesystem_limit none default
    data01 snapshot_limit none default
    data01 filesystem_count none default
    data01 snapshot_count none default
    data01 snapdev hidden default
    data01 acltype off default
    data01 context none default
    data01 fscontext none default
    data01 defcontext none default
    data01 rootcontext none default
    data01 relatime off default
    data01 redundant_metadata all default
    data01 overlay off default
     
    #1
  2. K D

    K D Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    286
    One obvious thing I can see is that you have SMR drives. That's the one hole in see in an otherwise awesome system. I have had problems with SMR drives in zfs as well as h/W raid. I doubt that you will be able tk get consistent performance with them in ZFS.
     
    #2
  3. Grohnheit

    Grohnheit New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi K D
    Yea, I know, I have been using these disk in h/w raid in my old server. (And that is the only reason why I bought 8 more)
    So I know they will be slow, and inconsistent.

    Its more the big difference between real performance and iostat that I am worried about, and thats happens on both my SSDs and HDDs.
    If we look at the SSDs, since they are more consistent beyond the first gig, iostat reports 220 MB/s witch seems very realistisk on these disks. The only problem is, that while iostat reports 220 MB/s, I am only seeing 70 MB/s in my guest, and in Proxmox.
    That makes me believe that I skrewed up somewhere, unless iostat is reporting false numbers.
     
    #3
Similar Threads: write perf
Forum Title Date
Linux Admins, Storage and Virtualization CEPH write performance pisses me off! Jan 25, 2017
Linux Admins, Storage and Virtualization Proxmox SMART and NVMe - Anyone seeing huge write numbers? Apr 24, 2017
Linux Admins, Storage and Virtualization Ceph low performance Sep 17, 2018
Linux Admins, Storage and Virtualization Looking for VPS or dedicated Server with near perfect latency to Phoenix (Arizona) Aug 19, 2018
Linux Admins, Storage and Virtualization How many here run ZFS on Linux and get good fsync performance? Aug 18, 2018

Share This Page