Space overhead is much higher on ashift=12 raidz

B

belon_cfy

Hi,
My current server consume almost double of space on the ashift=12 raidz especially storing a lot of small files in the server even the recordsize has been set to 128K, may I know is there any zfs update to resolve this issue, or should I need to choice mirror instead of raidz because space saving seems to be more noticable on mirror in this case.
 
Your RaidZ with ashift=12 is consuming twice as much space compared to what? Do you store the exact same data in both places?

Do you have drives with a 4k sector size? ashift=12 instructs ZFS to use record sizes which are a multiple of 4kiB (2^12), which prevents several performance problems with such drives.

If you set record size to 128k, minimum space taken by each file will be 128kiB regardless of the ashift setting. (I'm not entirely on this one)
Quoting the zfs() manpage, regarding recordsize; emphasis is mine:
Code: 
For databases that create very large files but access them in small 
random  chunks,  these  algorithms  may be suboptimal. Specifying a
recordsize greater than or equal to the record size of the database
can	result	in significant performance gains. [B]Use of this property
for general purpose file systems is strongly discouraged[/B],  and  may
adversely affect performance.
 
I had some data about changes from 512 to 4k in the thread. The changes on the sizes of the filesystems /usr/src and /usr/ports are particularly interesting since they have lots of small files.
 
OK, so I would rather use 512b on a 4k disk for storing backup but sacrifice some of the performance, it will be better in space saving.
 
Benchmark it first. Doing misaligned operations can destroy performance. Or maybe pick a filesystem that handles fragments better. Setting UFS to optimize for space rather than speed might do it. I'd think ZFS would do block suballocation also, maybe optionally.
 
phoenix said:
Or, enable compression and not worry about it. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, if you had compression enabled before- when there was ashift=9, and have compression enabled now with ashift=12, the space consumed will have increased. I too have noticed this, which to me was to be expected. Especially on filesystems like t1066 said, /, /usr, /usr/local, /usr/ports, /var and so on. And no, or a very small increase on other filesystems where most files are larger, like /home e.g.

But I agree with you that between performance and a space increase on small files, performance is preferable.

/Sebulon
 
gkontos said:
They are faster :e
Click to expand...

You have got to be janking my chain, right. You´re joking or something, cause I don´t follow. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with compression.

/Sebulon
 
Sebulon said:
You have got to be janking my chain, right. You´re joking or something, cause I don´t follow. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with compression.

/Sebulon
Click to expand...

I was not referring to you nor to compression. I simply pointed out that SAS drives are much faster than SATA.
 
gkontos said:
I was not referring to you nor to compression. I simply pointed out that SAS drives are much faster than SATA.
Click to expand...

Let me just point out to you that the topic discussed here is:
"Space overhead is much higher on ashift=12 raidz"

I´m not trying to be rude or anything. It´s just that your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. If you have a point, please explain further how that correlates to the subject. Would SAS drives somehow have a smaller space overhead than SATA with ashift=12?

/Sebulon
 
Sebulon said:
Let me just point out to you that the topic discussed here is:
"Space overhead is much higher on ashift=12 raidz"

I´m not trying to be rude or anything. It´s just that your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. If you have a point, please explain further how that correlates to the subject. Would SAS drives somehow have a smaller space overhead than SATA with ashift=12?

/Sebulon
Click to expand...

The answer regarding the overhead is here.

My later comment regarding SAS drives has to do with the fact that SAS drives will have better performance with ASHIFT=9 without the overhead.

Is that clear enough for you now?
 
gkontos said:
The answer regarding the overhead is here.

My later comment regarding SAS drives has to do with the fact that SAS drives will have better performance with ASHIFT=9 without the overhead.

Is that clear enough for you now?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm sorry, I totally missed that post! That was the missing piece:)

/Sebulon
 
How about switching all the HDD to Seagate with smart align technology adopted so that I can maintain the same 512 block size but without sacrifice additional disk space and performance. Running raidz2 on 4k drive natively really waste more than double of space in my scenario.

Anyway , will try to benchmark once i got it to see what is the performance impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top