8K recordsize bad on ZFS?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Jignesh Shah <jkshah(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: 8K recordsize bad on ZFS?
Date: 2010-05-08 00:09:45
Message-ID: 4BE4ABC9.6040106@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message thilo 2010-05-08 11:39:58 Slow Bulk Delete
Previous Message Craig James 2010-05-07 21:11:02 Dell Perc HX00 RAID controllers: What's inside?