[OpenIndiana-discuss] ZIL write cache performance

[Matt Clark]

It may not be as cheap as some, but an Intel 320 series 80GB SSD is still well under a hundred US dollars, and has full write protection in case of power failures so sync writes (which is what a ZIL does all the time), are fast and safe.  




On 13 Jan 2012, at 11:56, Matt Connolly wrote:

> Yes, it is as you guess comparing ZIL on the main pool vs ZIL on an SSD. I understand that the ZIL on its own is more of an integrity function rather than a performance boost. 
> 
> However, I would have expected some performance boost by using an SSD log device since writing to the dedicated log device reduces I/O load on the main pool (or is this wrong?)
> 
> Thanks for the heads up about the bug and pending fix.. I'll take a look.
> 
> -Matt. 
> 
> On 13/01/2012, at 9:34 AM, Steve Gonczi <gonczi at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Matt, 
>> 
>> The ZIL is not a performance enhancer. (This is a common misunderstanding, 
>> people sometimes view the ZIL as a write cache) . 
>> 
>> It is a way to simulate "sync" semantics on files where you really 
>> need that, instead of the coarser ganularity guarantee that zfs gives 
>> you without it. (txg level, where the in-progress transaction group may 
>> roll back if you crash). 
>> 
>> If I am reading your post correctly, you are comparing 2 scenarios 
>> 
>> 1) Zil is enabled, and goes to the main storage pool 
>> 2) Zil is enabled but it goes to a dedicated SSD instead. 
>> Please verify that this is indeed the case.
> 
> Yes, this is the case. 
> 
>> You should not expect having an SSD based zil performing better than 
>> when turning the ZIL off altogether. 
>> 
>> The latter of course will have better 
>> performance, but you have to live with the possibility of losing some data. 
>> 
>> Given that the case is (1) and (2), it all depends on how much performance 
>> headroom your pool has, vs. the write performance of the SSD. 
>> 
>> A fast SSD ( e.g.: DRAM based, and preferably dedicated to Zil and not split) 
>> would work best. It does not have to be huge, just large enough to store (say) 
>> 5 seconds worth of your planned peak data inflow. 
>> 
>> You need to be aware of a recent performance regression discovered pertaining to 
>> ZIL ( George Wilson has just posted the fix for review on the illumos dev list) 
>> This has been in Illumos for a while, so it is possible, that it is biting you. 
>> 
>> Steve 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi, I've installed an SSD drive in my OI machine and have it partitioned (sliced) with a main slice to boot from and a smaller slice to use as a write cache (ZIL) for our data pool. 
>> 
>> I've noticed that for many tasks, using the ZIL actually slows many tasks at hand (operation within a qemu-kvm virtual machine, mysql loading importing a dump file, etc). I know I bought a cheap SSD to play with so I wasn't expected the best performance, but I would have expected some improvement, not a slow down. 
>> 
>> In one particular test, I have mysql running in a zone and loading a test data set takes about 40 seconds without the ZIL and about 60 seconds with ZIL. I certainly wasn't expecting a 50% slow down. 
>> 
>> Is this to be expected? 
>> 
>> Are there any best practices for testing an SSD to see if it will actually improve performance of a zfs pool? 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> Matt 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list 
>> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org 
>> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
>> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>