Re: 8K recordsize bad on ZFS?

Josh,

it'll be great if you explain how did you change the records size to
128K? - as this size is assigned on the file creation and cannot be
changed later - I suppose that you made a backup of your data and then
process a full restore.. is it so?

Rgds,
-Dimitri

On 5/8/10, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Jignesh, All:
>
> Most of our Solaris users have been, I think, following Jignesh's advice
> from his benchmark tests to set ZFS page size to 8K for the data zpool.
> However, I've discovered that this is sometimes a serious problem for
> some hardware.
>
> For example, having the recordsize set to 8K on a Sun 4170 with 8 drives
> recently gave me these appalling Bonnie++ results:
>
> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> Concurrency 4 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
> --Seeks--
> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> db111 24G 260044 33 62110 17 89914 15
> 1167 25
> Latency 6549ms 4882ms 3395ms
> 107ms
>
> I know that's hard to read. What it's saying is:
>
> Seq Writes: 260mb/s combined
> Seq Reads: 89mb/s combined
> Read Latency: 3.3s
>
> Best guess is that this is a result of overloading the array/drives with
> commands for all those small blocks; certainly the behavior observed
> (stuttering I/O, latency) is in line with that issue.
>
> Anyway, since this is a DW-like workload, we just bumped the recordsize
> up to 128K and the performance issues went away ... reads up over 300mb/s.
>
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://www.pgexperts.com
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>