From nobody Fri Feb 16 12:29:05 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TbrpF6slPz5BmLM for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:29:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=qAai=JZ=klop.ws=ronald-lists@realworks.nl) Received: from smtp-relay-int.realworks.nl (smtp-relay-int.realworks.nl [194.109.157.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TbrpF49y7z4R7l; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:29:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=qAai=JZ=klop.ws=ronald-lists@realworks.nl) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:29:05 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=klop.ws; s=rw2; t=1708086545; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0zJMoKIJL0bYLqBzT2jffwxCKDgJKQ4xqYbibdoTMVA=; b=nMvnq59NtKf3hCjQR2V8MZAHYe1ed4mipcKYCONj1YzUkry2/mV1VjVmqnu3DSxy1Al0Rv sxg9FExC7ho4T1gKgpNh4G0O0LlKHU4X0PR7/Hb3xd1WtdB5aWDD3ysEgsQSpqrKgVmZc/ hlbjC8msVfkYAVDwqb8HZ89osAgueP2qkw41A6ynXALxx86B5QTHQWrji+tNPb5xnFXkbY wl/RaBcC6UqZ+0BwqzJ8dummDEFYUO9YVHDtDngwr8cYxCNjEuzYZy3sJx9Y7S9oMBPQOE uZJ3ceTFgB0PrZ14JtPlCsPGI0MdCzANEwMGb3xc4H1F0QqesQhgL3NArMOLkA== From: Ronald Klop To: Dimitry Andric Cc: joe mcguckin , freebsd-fs Message-ID: <704608246.2505.1708086545529@localhost> In-Reply-To: <45ED978F-8F7B-408E-90F8-C926CE49C6D5@FreeBSD.org> References: <163F3799-67B7-42C5-ABED-767DCC6DAC03@via.net> <45ED978F-8F7B-408E-90F8-C926CE49C6D5@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ZFS performance List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2504_34371019.1708086545520" X-Mailer: Realworks (690.28) Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TbrpF49y7z4R7l X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3265, ipnet:194.109.0.0/16, country:NL] ------=_Part_2504_34371019.1708086545520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Van: Dimitry Andric Datum: vrijdag, 16 februari 2024 12:49 Aan: joe mcguckin CC: freebsd-fs Onderwerp: Re: ZFS performance >=20 > On 16 Feb 2024, at 02:08, joe mcguckin wrote: > > > > I have a ZFS fileserver running samba- I =E2=80=98m using it as a file = server and as a Timemachine backup server. TM work but mit is really slow. > > Are there speed tweaks for ZFS I can apply. Does ZFS have perf monitor= ing features I can use to characterize the speed? >=20 > Apple's Time Machine is just horrendously slow in general, the host's > file system does not seem to matter at all. If you just copy a regular > file to that SMB share, you should see that it performs well enough. >=20 > I am still unsure what it is in Time machine that makes it so slow, but > it sometimes seems to stall completely on very small files, and it can > take minutes (!) to copy just a few kilobytes. >=20 > It may help a little to do on the Mac: >=20 > sudo sysctl debug.lowpri_throttle_enabled=3D0 >=20 > but it won't get significantly faster. People should complain to Apple, > but they will probably just say that FreeBSD with Samba is not an > officially supported use case. :) >=20 > -Dimitry >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Just a me-too message, but I have my Mac syncing with TM over Samba (on Tru= enas) over WiFi pretty well. It uses ZFS mirror on 2 consumer grade SATA d= isks. The speed can fluctuate a lot but it just runs in the background anyway. On= ly the first sync takes a while and I don't remember if that can resume fro= m being interrupted or not. NB: my previous TrueNAS had a 100mbit network card which could get saturate= d so much that it couldn't even do DNS requests anymore which broke startin= g other backup streams. Current machine has 1gbit which has enough bandwidt= h for all leftover traffic, What I want to say is that the details matter here. Look at the system and = try to find the bottleneck. Regards, Ronald. =20 ------=_Part_2504_34371019.1708086545520 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Van: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>
Datum: vrijdag, 16 februari 2024 12:49
Aan: joe mcguckin <joe@via.net>
CC: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Onderwerp: Re: ZFS performance

On 16 Feb 2024, at 02:08, joe mcg= uckin <joe@via.net> wrote:
>
> I have a ZFS fileserver running samba- I =E2=80=98m using it as a file= server and as a Timemachine backup server. TM work but mit is really slow.=
> Are there speed tweaks for ZFS I can apply.  Does ZFS have perf m= onitoring features I can use to characterize the speed?

Apple's Time Machine is just horrendously slow in general, the host's
file system does not seem to matter at all. If you just copy a regular
file to that SMB share, you should see that it performs well enough.

I am still unsure what it is in Time machine that makes it so slow, but
it sometimes seems to stall completely on very small files, and it can
take minutes (!) to copy just a few kilobytes.

It may help a little to do on the Mac:

sudo sysctl debug.lowpri_throttle_enabled=3D0

but it won't get significantly faster. People should complain to Apple,
but they will probably just say that FreeBSD with Samba is not an
officially supported use case. :)

-Dimitry

 


Just a me-too message, but I have my Mac syncing with TM over Samba (on Tru= enas) over WiFi pretty well. It uses ZFS mirror on 2 consumer grade SATA&nb= sp; disks.
The speed can fluctuate a lot but it just runs in the background anyway. On= ly the first sync takes a while and I don't remember if that can resume fro= m being interrupted or not.

NB: my previous TrueNAS had a 100mbit network card which could get saturate= d so much that it couldn't even do DNS requests anymore which broke startin= g other backup streams. Current machine has 1gbit which has enough bandwidt= h for all leftover traffic,
What I want to say is that the details matter here. Look at the system and = try to find the bottleneck.

Regards,
Ronald.
  ------=_Part_2504_34371019.1708086545520--