archive-org.com » ORG » F » FREENAS.ORG

Total: 927

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • CIFS directory browsing slow? Try this | FreeNAS Community
    newbies to FreeNAS have Only you can prevent flame wars Read the FreeNAS manual SpoilerTarget Show My Main System FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE whatever is the latest Intel Xeon E3 1230v2 Supermicro X9SCM F 32GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM 32GB SATA DOM Cyberpower 1500AVR Ten WD Red WD60EFRX NAS Hard Drives RAIDZ2 40 9TB usable space 10GbE Chelsio adapter cyberjock Feb 19 2015 1 zoomzoom mrclint Mike77 and 11 others like this Offline JJT211 FreeNAS Aware Member Since Jul 4 2014 Messages 208 Message Count 208 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 18 Location New Orleans LA JJT211 Mar 23 2015 oh sweet just seeing this thread I tired this tweak from jpaetzel in the performance forum and I went from 20 30 MB s to 100 MB s https forums freenas org index php threads lan performance 8089 Ill have a looksy when IK get home later from class FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE Supermicro A1SAi 2750F with Intel C2750 Avoton 8C 8T SoC 32GB 4x8GB DDR3 ECC Memory KVR16LSE11 8 Mirrored Boot 2x16GB USB 2 0 Low Profile Flash Drive RAID Z2 6x4TB WD Red NAS HD SeaSonic SS 300M1U 300W ATX12V EPS12V 80 PLUS GOLD Fractal Design Node 304 Black Aluminum Steel Mini ITX JJT211 Mar 23 2015 2 Offline cyberjock Forum Guard Dog Admin Member Since Mar 25 2012 Messages 18 609 Message Count 18 609 Likes Received 1 444 Trophy Points 113 cyberjock Mar 23 2015 JJT211 said oh sweet just seeing this thread I tired this tweak from jpaetzel in the performance forum and I went from 20 30 MB s to 100 MB s https forums freenas org index php threads lan performance 8089 Ill have a looksy when IK get home later from class Click to expand Yeah you do realize that the default for that value for more than 2 years has been the exact value that thread tells you to change That thread is from 2012 and the default changed shortly after that post So unless you are going to tell me you are using 8 0 4 or something older than 2012 that tweak didn t actually change any setting at all so you definitely didn t see performance change from that setting Code text root mini sysctl a grep delayed net inet tcp delayed ack 0 Hardware recommendations RAID5 RAIDZ1 is dead Read my guide It answers common questions newbies to FreeNAS have Only you can prevent flame wars Read the FreeNAS manual SpoilerTarget Show My Main System FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE whatever is the latest Intel Xeon E3 1230v2 Supermicro X9SCM F 32GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM 32GB SATA DOM Cyberpower 1500AVR Ten WD Red WD60EFRX NAS Hard Drives RAIDZ2 40 9TB usable space 10GbE Chelsio adapter cyberjock Mar 23 2015 3 Offline JJT211 FreeNAS Aware Member Since Jul 4 2014 Messages 208 Message Count 208 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 18 Location New Orleans LA JJT211 Mar 24 2015 Well somehow someway my CIFS transfers speed did jump immediately after setting value no other changes I dunno FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE Supermicro A1SAi 2750F with Intel C2750 Avoton 8C 8T SoC 32GB 4x8GB DDR3 ECC Memory KVR16LSE11 8 Mirrored Boot 2x16GB USB 2 0 Low Profile Flash Drive RAID Z2 6x4TB WD Red NAS HD SeaSonic SS 300M1U 300W ATX12V EPS12V 80 PLUS GOLD Fractal Design Node 304 Black Aluminum Steel Mini ITX JJT211 Mar 24 2015 4 Offline JJT211 FreeNAS Aware Member Since Jul 4 2014 Messages 208 Message Count 208 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 18 Location New Orleans LA JJT211 Mar 26 2015 I was curious as to why it seems nobody is using it anymore which is why I posted it here in the first place Ill try duplicating it by disabling the tweak and testing CIFS speeds again You re probably right its placebo EDIT Just saw the command you posted and you re right After deleting sysctl tweak I typed command and same thing I judged the difference a bit too quickily as CIFS speeds mostly seem to start really fast but slow down considerably when they settle FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE Supermicro A1SAi 2750F with Intel C2750 Avoton 8C 8T SoC 32GB 4x8GB DDR3 ECC Memory KVR16LSE11 8 Mirrored Boot 2x16GB USB 2 0 Low Profile Flash Drive RAID Z2 6x4TB WD Red NAS HD SeaSonic SS 300M1U 300W ATX12V EPS12V 80 PLUS GOLD Fractal Design Node 304 Black Aluminum Steel Mini ITX JJT211 Mar 26 2015 5 Offline JJT211 FreeNAS Aware Member Since Jul 4 2014 Messages 208 Message Count 208 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 18 Location New Orleans LA JJT211 Mar 26 2015 I have a question regarding 2 Increase the amount of ARC that stores metadata I noticed like your example above that the metadata used was above the metadata limit root freenas sysctl vfs zfs arc meta limit vfs zfs arc meta limit 3874161664 root freenas sysctl vfs zfs arc meta used vfs zfs arc meta used 446137736 Click to expand So I set it slightly higher than what im currently using root freenas sysctl vfs zfs arc meta limit 500000000 vfs zfs arc meta limit 3874161664 5000000000 root freenas sysctl vfs zfs arc meta used vfs zfs arc meta used 446105464 root freenas sysctl vfs zfs arc meta limit vfs zfs arc meta limit 5000000000 root freenas Click to expand Then after I realized that the ARC Size value is actually displayed in the Reporting tab I looked back at the history and noticed that my system normally settles at about 10GB which is about half my current limit much smaller I recently rebooted my server which is why I think its ARC size 5GB currently kind of low I noticed you have a bit higher spec d machine so it prob wouldnt be a good idea to use your limit So my question is considering the specs in my sig where do you think I should set my limit Slightly above 10G maybe around 11 EDIT I miss counted 0 s at first and had it set to 500MB instead of 5GB And I was misreading my used meta Thats 446MB used My old limit was already plenty above at around 3 8 GB So nevermind then Ill leave this here as a warning to others Moral of the story just go with 4 Disable DOS attributes FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE Supermicro A1SAi 2750F with Intel C2750 Avoton 8C 8T SoC 32GB 4x8GB DDR3 ECC Memory KVR16LSE11 8 Mirrored Boot 2x16GB USB 2 0 Low Profile Flash Drive RAID Z2 6x4TB WD Red NAS HD SeaSonic SS 300M1U 300W ATX12V EPS12V 80 PLUS GOLD Fractal Design Node 304 Black Aluminum Steel Mini ITX JJT211 Mar 26 2015 6 Offline AlainD FreeNAS Aware Member Since Apr 7 2013 Messages 108 Message Count 108 Likes Received 2 Trophy Points 18 Location Europe AlainD Mar 28 2015 cyberjock said This has become a larger and larger problem that has affected more and more users If your CIFS directory browsing is slow there are multiple ways to resolve the issue 4 Disable DOS attributes Samba imitates DOS attributes read only hidden system archive and ZFS stores them as extended attributes These are really a throwback to the 80s and not too many people use them anymore ZFS stores them as extended attributes EAs and there is a pretty serious performance penalty with doing so If you don t need them the best thing you can do is disable them outright Here s how Under the CIFS Settings page you can add the following settings as shown below View attachment 6748 Simply add the following to the Auxiliary Parameters of CIFS settings and save the changes They will immediately apply themselves ea support no store dos attributes no map archive no map hidden no map readonly no map system no This does several things 1 Disables Samba from using EAs 2 Tells Samba not to store the DOS attributes any existing bits that are set are simply abandoned in place in the EAs 3 Forces all 4 parameters to off no unchecked disabled Note The read only bit I am mentioning disabling then forcing to off is not the standard read only permissions users may be given to files or folders If this is your problem simply applying the above settings should result in an instantaneous increase in performance If you have directories with 100k files it will still take a few seconds to populate but you ll find it is MUCH more expedient than it was previously If the changes do not help or you wish to undo the changes simply remove the settings The old bits will immediately reassert themselves as they were the abandoned bits are never overwritten with these changes Problems with this approach If you the software you use hardware that uses the CIFS shares directly or your end users rely on these settings this will break things for them By software you use I generally mean backup software Some old fashioned backup software uses the old archive bit to determine what does or doesn t need backed up This shouldn t be used by anything that is even remotely recent so unless you ve explicitly enabled the backup software to use the archive bit or you are using backup software that is pre 2005 or so you shouldn t have a problem By hardware that uses the CIFS shares directly I m refering to things like all in one scan copy fax print machines that let you scan documents to a CIFS share Those will sometimes want to force one or more bits to on or off and those operations will fail From my own personal experience anyone that has had slow Samba directory listings have seen amazing performance increases by using these parameters Nobody I ve worked with directly has required additional changes above and beyond the above 6 parameters Generally its safe to try these settings and if there isn t any problems for a week its safe to assume that nothing required those bits Click to expand Thanks directory browsing is a lot faster after that small adjustment makes CIFS on FreeNAS and thus FreeNAS itself usable again AlainD Mar 28 2015 7 Offline BlazeStar FreeNAS Aware Member Since Apr 6 2014 Messages 299 Message Count 299 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 16 BlazeStar Mar 30 2015 Awesome post thanks BlazeStar Mar 30 2015 8 Offline Mike77 Newbie Member Since Nov 15 2014 Messages 83 Message Count 83 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 6 Mike77 Jun 4 2015 cyberjock said This has become a larger and larger problem that has affected more and more users If your CIFS directory browsing is slow there are multiple ways to resolve the issue 4 Disable DOS attributes Samba imitates DOS attributes read only hidden system archive and ZFS stores them as extended attributes These are really a throwback to the 80s and not too many people use them anymore ZFS stores them as extended attributes EAs and there is a pretty serious performance penalty with doing so If you don t need them the best thing you can do is disable them outright Here s how Under the CIFS Settings page you can add the following settings as shown below View attachment 6748 Simply add the following to the Auxiliary Parameters of CIFS settings and save the changes They will immediately apply themselves ea support no store dos attributes no map archive no map hidden no map readonly no map system no Click to expand Did it and it works like a charm Amazing FreeNAS 9 3 Stable Supermicro X10SL7 F with Intel Xeon E3 1230 V3 and 4 8GB Crucial ECC 1 35V DDR3 1600MHz 7 WD Red 4TB Raid Z2 and a Samsung 850 PRO 256 GB SSD still doing nothing Mike77 Jun 4 2015 9 Offline neckbeard Member Since Mar 5 2014 Messages 2 Message Count 2 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 neckbeard Jul 11 2015 Disabling the DOS attributes also fixed my issue where file transfers would go from 80 100MB s stall to 0 and then go back up to 80 100 in a wave formation That behavior started about a month ago from the updates neckbeard Jul 11 2015 10 Offline cyberjock Forum Guard Dog Admin Member Since Mar 25 2012 Messages 18 609 Message Count 18 609 Likes Received 1 444 Trophy Points 113 cyberjock Jul 12 2015 neckbeard said Disabling the DOS attributes also fixed my issue where file transfers would go from 80 100MB s stall to 0 and then go back up to 80 100 in a wave formation That behavior started about a month ago from the updates Click to expand If file transfers themselves are fluctuating this badly you ve probably under resourced your system in some fashion Hardware recommendations RAID5 RAIDZ1 is dead Read my guide It answers common questions newbies to FreeNAS have Only you can prevent flame wars Read the FreeNAS manual SpoilerTarget Show My Main System FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE whatever is the latest Intel Xeon E3 1230v2 Supermicro X9SCM F 32GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM 32GB SATA DOM Cyberpower 1500AVR Ten WD Red WD60EFRX NAS Hard Drives RAIDZ2 40 9TB usable space 10GbE Chelsio adapter cyberjock Jul 12 2015 11 Offline neckbeard Member Since Mar 5 2014 Messages 2 Message Count 2 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 neckbeard Jul 13 2015 cyberjock said If file transfers themselves are fluctuating this badly you ve probably under resourced your system in some fashion Click to expand I ve been running the same config for about two years and this only started happening in the last few weeks Currently I have a FreeNAS virtual machine on ESXi 6 0 with 8GB of ram and pass through to an LSI 9211i in IT mode with 6 WD Red 3TB in RAIDZ2 and 32GB of L2ARC I can push 120MB s across the VMware environment where everything is 10gb and 100MB s across a gigabit LAN neckbeard Jul 13 2015 12 Offline cyberjock Forum Guard Dog Admin Member Since Mar 25 2012 Messages 18 609 Message Count 18 609 Likes Received 1 444 Trophy Points 113 cyberjock Jul 13 2015 neckbeard said I ve been running the same config for about two years and this only started happening in the last few weeks Click to expand Honestly that means absolutely nothing in terms of diagnosing the problem or validating one argument over another ZFS needs more resources the more it is used Fragmentation disk usage etc all only get worse as time goes on So the fact that it suddenly started happening lately even if it started happening clear out of the blue doesn t mean anything In fact if you haven t made any changes your comment tends to give me the advantage on the likely status of the situation neckbeard said Currently I have a FreeNAS virtual machine on ESXi 6 0 with 8GB of ram and pass through to an LSI 9211i in IT mode with 6 WD Red 3TB in RAIDZ2 and 32GB of L2ARC I can push 120MB s across the VMware environment where everything is 10gb and 100MB s across a gigabit LAN Click to expand That sums it up 8GB of RAM is not appropriate for 18TB of disk space You also shouldn t have any L2ARC with just 8GB of RAM 8GB of RAM is the minimum It is NOT sufficient for a 32GB L2ARC In fact even an 8GB L2ARC would probably oversize and starve your system So yeah you pretty much validated that you starved your system and fixed it by removing some of the load No doubt you are overloading the system with it s limited resources and no doubt you ll someday have the system s performance come crashing down As the sole user of my system I went to bed one night with speeds in excess of 300MB sec I woke up the next morning and couldn t even do 5MB sec Why I hit the cliff where my system was under resourced enough that there was no going back I had to double my RAM to correct the issue Hardware recommendations RAID5 RAIDZ1 is dead Read my guide It answers common questions newbies to FreeNAS have Only you can prevent flame wars Read the FreeNAS manual SpoilerTarget Show My Main System FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE whatever is the latest Intel Xeon E3 1230v2 Supermicro X9SCM F 32GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM 32GB SATA DOM Cyberpower 1500AVR Ten WD Red WD60EFRX NAS Hard Drives RAIDZ2 40 9TB usable space 10GbE Chelsio adapter cyberjock Jul 13 2015 13 Robert Trevellyan likes this Offline Aberu Member Since Jan 30 2015 Messages 6 Message Count 6 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 Aberu Sep 23 2015 Your 4 method really helped me a while ago I also have helped a few other people on r freenas with the same solution by redirecting them here Thanks Current FreeNAS Build Supermicro X10SLL SF O Intel Celeron G1820 Crucial 2x8gb DDR3 1600 ECC CT2KIT102472BD160B 4x3TB WD Reds Corsair CX430 PSU Fractal Design Define R4 Aberu Sep 23 2015 14 Offline rogerh NAS ty with the FreeNAS Member Since Apr 18 2014 Messages 837 Message Count 837 Likes Received 72 Trophy Points 28 rogerh Oct 22 2015 I added the 4 dos attribute removal parameters to the CIFS service auxiliary parameters This was a few weeks ago but a I am not sure when I am now on the latest stable FreeNAS 9 3 1 I noticed two things today in the CIFS service dialogue box had appeared the entry browseable ea support no which is clearly an error of some kind I replaced it with browseable yes and after a newline ea support no This seems to be accepted and neither parameter appears in testparm output which is probably good as both

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/cifs-directory-browsing-slow-try-this.27751/ (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive


  • CIFS directory browsing slow? Try this | Page 2 | FreeNAS Community
    on the right I canceled the 2nd transfer when it kept dropping in transfer speeds I was copying from one FreeNAS to another The server build is in the header and identical for both units Win7 box acting as CIFS client Any ideas Click to expand These parameters do not affect file transfer speeds It only affects the speed of directory listing on a CIFS share If you are having an issue please start new thread How to configure CIFS permissions CIFS Tips and Tricks CIFS Home Directories in an AD Environment Tips for using Unix permissions on a samba share How to fix slow directory browsing in CIFS Editing CIFS permissions through the CLI anodos Dec 13 2015 21 Offline webpilot Member Since Nov 9 2015 Messages 27 Message Count 27 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 Location MId Altantic US webpilot Dec 13 2015 Point taken but removing the ea support no made a difference in both transfer and directory refresh Users of this will have to be able to test and decide what is needed based on their build Build 1 FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE 201512121950 Platform Dell PE510 w two Xeon L5640 HBA LSI 9211 8i IT V20 RAM 128GB ECC Array 12 WD RE in RAID 10 Boot Dual 16GB Cruizer Force SLOG 3710 Cyberpower PR1500L Intel PRO 1000 Pt Dual NIC Build 2 Replication FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE 201512121950 Platform Dell PE510 w two Xeon L5520 HBA LSI 9211 8i IT V20 RAM 128GB ECC Array 12 WD SE in RAID 10 Boot Dual 16GB Cruizer Force SLOG 3710 Intel PRO 1000 Pt Dual NIC webpilot Dec 13 2015 22 You must log in or sign up to reply here Show Ignored Content Page 2 of 2 Prev 1 2 Share This Page Tweet

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/cifs-directory-browsing-slow-try-this.27751/page-2 (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Why iSCSI often requires more resources for the same result | FreeNAS Community
    Location WHO 1 ville Unixland jgreco Mar 6 2015 Actually UNMAP is supported in FreeNAS but this is only a portion of an overall difficult problem UNMAP doesn t really solve big issues such as fragmentation and identification of metadata blocks The techniques ZFS has for coping with these issues is generally workable if you re willing to throw resources at it However people who don t blink at spending 1K on a quality RAID controller often pale at the idea of putting 64GB of RAM into their filer What people want old repurposed 486 with 32MB RAM and a dozen cheap SATA disks in RAIDZ2 What people need E5 1637v3 with 128GB RAM and a dozen decent SATA disks mirrored jgreco Mar 6 2015 3 Offline Tywin NAS ty with the FreeNAS Member Since Sep 19 2014 Messages 163 Message Count 163 Likes Received 31 Trophy Points 28 Tywin Mar 6 2015 jgreco said Actually UNMAP is supported in FreeNAS but this is only a portion of an overall difficult problem UNMAP doesn t really solve big issues such as fragmentation and identification of metadata blocks Click to expand Of course not UNMAP solves the specific problem it was designed for informing the underlying system of what blocks are no longer of immediate interest As for the other issues you mention presumably you mention metadata blocks because they are accessed more frequently e g in traversing the file system Since ZFS s ARC is designed to keep frequently accessed blocks cached this basically amounts to have enough ARC Hence coming full circle to the point of your post that iSCSI requires appropriate resources to have the same performance as other protocols Edit I see the reference to UNMAP in the 9 3 docs It didn t show up in that cursory Google search jgreco said The techniques ZFS has for coping with these issues is generally workable if you re willing to throw resources at it However people who don t blink at spending 1K on a quality RAID controller often pale at the idea of putting 64GB of RAM into their filer What people want old repurposed 486 with 32MB RAM and a dozen cheap SATA disks in RAIDZ2 What people need E5 1637v3 with 128GB RAM and a dozen decent SATA disks mirrored Click to expand This argument is kind of specious though since you were discussing different resource requirements for SAN vs NAS protocols for the same performance level I put to you that a 486 with 32 MiB of RAM and a dozen cheap SATA disks in RAIDZ2 running NFS will a not work and b even if it did not perform as well as the proposed E5 system running iSCSI Tywin Mar 6 2015 4 Offline jgreco Resident Grinch Member Since May 29 2011 Messages 8 130 Message Count 8 130 Likes Received 1 274 Trophy Points 113 Location WHO 1 ville Unixland jgreco Mar 6 2015 Tywin said Of course not UNMAP solves the specific problem it was designed for informing the underlying system of what blocks are no longer of immediate interest As for the other issues you mention presumably you mention metadata blocks because they are accessed more frequently e g in traversing the file system Since ZFS s ARC is designed to keep frequently accessed blocks cached this basically amounts to have enough ARC Hence coming full circle to the point of your post that iSCSI requires appropriate resources to have the same performance as other protocols Click to expand Right but appropriate resources translates to larger resources because have enough ARC means have ARC sufficient to speculatively store blocks because we have no idea whether these are meta or data and therefore need to give them a lot more time in residence to sort out whether they re important or not This argument is kind of specious though since you were discussing different resource requirements for SAN vs NAS protocols for the same performance level I put to you that a 486 with 32 MiB of RAM and a dozen cheap SATA disks in RAIDZ2 running NFS will a not work and b even if it did not perform as well as the proposed E5 system running iSCSI Click to expand Well literally that s true but I was making a figurative point People come in expecting magic and their hopes are dashed by the cold light of reality jgreco Mar 6 2015 5 Offline Tywin NAS ty with the FreeNAS Member Since Sep 19 2014 Messages 163 Message Count 163 Likes Received 31 Trophy Points 28 Tywin Mar 6 2015 jgreco said Right but appropriate resources translates to larger resources because have enough ARC means have ARC sufficient to speculatively store blocks because we have no idea whether these are meta or data and therefore need to give them a lot more time in residence to sort out whether they re important or not Click to expand Never disagreed with that don t know where you got the idea that I did Tywin Mar 6 2015 6 Offline jgreco Resident Grinch Member Since May 29 2011 Messages 8 130 Message Count 8 130 Likes Received 1 274 Trophy Points 113 Location WHO 1 ville Unixland jgreco Mar 6 2015 I didn t say you disagreed with it It was mostly aimed at the audience to reset unrealistic expectations of what appropriate resources might mean I have repeatedly said that it is totally possible to get awesome performance with iSCSI by throwing resources at the problem but that the resources necessary might be horrific especially to newcomers That seems particularly appropriate in this thread jgreco Mar 6 2015 7 Offline yis Newbie Member Since Jan 24 2015 Messages 30 Message Count 30 Likes Received 1 Trophy Points 8 Occupation Security Consultant Location Los Angeles yis Mar 6 2015 Thank you all for this discussion this has been very helpful and eye opening The reason i went with 12gb of

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/why-iscsi-often-requires-more-resources-for-the-same-result.28178/ (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sync writes, or: Why is my ESXi NFS so slow, and why is iSCSI faster? | FreeNAS Community
    sync always performed pretty much in line with NFS and sync standard for a zpool without a SLOG device Ask Me ESXi 5 5U2 32GB RAM 8 vCPU VMXNet3 LSI 9207 8e 24 Seagate Constellation ES 3 SAS 1TB RAID 10 SuperMicro SC847E26 JBOD LSI 9207 8i ZeusRAM for SLOG SuperMicro X9DRW 3TF Intel E5 2650 128GB ECC DDR3 RAM Dual APC Smart UPS 3000 Dual Power supply on all equipment with 1 PS to each UPS pbucher Apr 25 2013 4 xhoy likes this Offline jgreco Resident Grinch Member Since May 29 2011 Messages 8 130 Message Count 8 130 Likes Received 1 274 Trophy Points 113 Location WHO 1 ville Unixland jgreco Apr 27 2013 paleoN said The integrity of the pool is not affected by this Click to expand The jury s still out on that one That statement is supposed to be true for Solaris but I ve seen conflicting statements for FreeBSD and there is a compelling argument that since ZFS was not designed with the feature from the ground up there is also a lot of room for unanticipated unexpected interactions even on Solaris jgreco Apr 27 2013 5 Offline paleoN FreeNAS Guru Member Since Apr 22 2012 Messages 1 403 Message Count 1 403 Likes Received 18 Trophy Points 38 paleoN Apr 29 2013 jgreco said The jury s still out on that one Click to expand Who s jury jgreco said That statement is supposed to be true for Solaris but I ve seen conflicting statements for FreeBSD and there is a compelling argument that since ZFS was not designed with the feature from the ground up there is also a lot of room for unanticipated unexpected interactions even on Solaris Click to expand I haven t ran across conflicting statements for FreeBSD but there is a lot I haven t seen I will reiterate that I m interested in links for any such statements assuming Oracle hasn t broken them What wasn t designed from the ground up disabling the ZIL per dataset or globally disabling the ZIL Neil Perrin the ZFS dev who wrote the ZIL code has always stated that ZFS does not require the ZIL for on disk consistency from the beginning Metadata is essentially written after the data and I don t understand how disabling the ZIL suddenly breaks all these metadata writes But then I m no ZFS expert either FreeNAS 9 1 1 RELEASE x64 Define XL R2 Supermicro X9SCM F O 9301 CT NIC Xeon E3 1230v2 CPU 16 GB DDR3 ECC RAM 4 x Seagate ST 2 000DM001 2 TB striped mirrors paleoN Apr 29 2013 6 Offline KTrain Newbie Member Since Dec 29 2013 Messages 36 Message Count 36 Likes Received 1 Trophy Points 8 Occupation MSFT Active Directory and Exchange Engineer III Location Ohio KTrain Dec 29 2013 Thanks for the great write up Helps me a lot as a newcomer Current FreeNAS Deployment HP DL380 G7 2 x Xeon E5620 144GB of DDR3 ECC 16 x 1Gbps KTrain Dec 29 2013 7 Offline datnus FreeNAS Aware Member Since Jan 25 2013 Messages 102 Message Count 102 Likes Received 1 Trophy Points 18 datnus May 3 2014 Hi jgreco Let s say I m using SSD ZIL and sync standard for iSCSI 1 What happen to my VMs if the power of Freenas is off or Freenas is shutdown Will my VMs be corrupted if they are writting data to vmdk disks 2 Would ZFS metadata be helpful in this situation Thanks for clearing my doubt jgreco said iSCSI by default does not implement sync writes As such it often appears to users to be much faster and therefore a much better choice than NFS However your VM data is being written async which is hazardous to your VM s On the other hand the ZFS filesystem and pool metadata are being written synchronously which is a good thing That means that this is probably the way to go if you refuse to buy a SSD SLOG device and are okay with some risk to your VM s Click to expand datnus May 3 2014 8 Offline jgreco Resident Grinch Member Since May 29 2011 Messages 8 130 Message Count 8 130 Likes Received 1 274 Trophy Points 113 Location WHO 1 ville Unixland jgreco May 3 2014 1 While not a guarantee yes is the answer you seek 2 No jgreco May 3 2014 9 Offline pbucher FreeNAS Aware Member Since Oct 15 2012 Messages 180 Message Count 180 Likes Received 18 Trophy Points 18 Location napp it is fun pbucher May 4 2014 jgreco said 1 While not a guarantee yes is the answer you seek 2 No Click to expand Agreed On 1 is the same as pulling the plug on your physical server when it s in the middle of writing data You may be lucky and everything just recovers when turned back or or you might have nothing but corrupted files and need to find your backups Ask Me ESXi 5 5U2 32GB RAM 8 vCPU VMXNet3 LSI 9207 8e 24 Seagate Constellation ES 3 SAS 1TB RAID 10 SuperMicro SC847E26 JBOD LSI 9207 8i ZeusRAM for SLOG SuperMicro X9DRW 3TF Intel E5 2650 128GB ECC DDR3 RAM Dual APC Smart UPS 3000 Dual Power supply on all equipment with 1 PS to each UPS pbucher May 4 2014 10 Offline Ken Almond Member Since May 11 2014 Messages 14 Message Count 14 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 Ken Almond May 11 2014 Thanks to all for the info and to me it solves my issue 1 I did many things new network cards new net cables new switch to see why my FreeNAS was so slow no good answer All the while it was VMware itself that was a key contributor I understand that now I also discovered iSCSI was about 2x faster than NFS 2 Today I am cloning about 800GB to my

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/sync-writes-or-why-is-my-esxi-nfs-so-slow-and-why-is-iscsi-faster.12506/ (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sync writes, or: Why is my ESXi NFS so slow, and why is iSCSI faster? | Page 2 | FreeNAS Community
    1 ville Unixland jgreco Dec 30 2014 1 you can safely distrust the guy who says it s not a bad thing it places your VM data at risk Maybe not a ton but the risk is there and it s insane to think there s no risk OTOH you can make an intelligent and informed choice to go this route Noncritical backed up VM s Probably just fine to do 2 Easy to add SLOG Just pick a good one if you go that route Think the S3700 is favored right now jgreco Dec 30 2014 30 Offline Ken Almond Member Since May 11 2014 Messages 14 Message Count 14 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 Ken Almond Dec 30 2014 I have been running FreeNAS for last 2 years learned several things One is performance with VMware NFS For VMware I run i7 3930K 3 2GHz on Adpatect 3405 RAID with dual GigE ethernet For FreeNAS I run FreeNAS 9 2 1 5 on Quad CPU Q9400 2 66GHz with 8GB RAM and GigE ethernet on RAIDZ1 5 x 3TB Seageate 7200 desktop class The system is completely UPS ed moderately fast and NOT overaloaded so my performance metrics are not complex or complicated by side issues like overload or multiple users In the beginning I was dismayed at 2 5MB s write speed to NFS doing VMware clones but also robocopy from my desktop to FreeNAS Windows share I tried iSCSI no real difference The issue is the sync always Every write is synced When I set sync disabled my write performance jumps 10x 20x to 40MB s to 80MB s range Based on my hardware desktop class network 1GB this is what I would expect It does vary from 40 to 80 but its clearly 10x or more faster with sync disabled Just experiment and you ll find this is THE key issue for FreeNAS write performance on a RAIDZ1 What I do 1 You can set sync status per volume I set sync disabled on a specific vmware volume where I want performance and some risk is OK e g I use Avamar to backup VMs nightly so I have recovery plan 2 You can set sync disabled sync always live takes 1 second no reboot or anyting difficult required So I set sync disabled when I m doing clones or large copies e g anything more than 20GB Then sync always when finished 3 I have things UPS ed and I run scrub every week So in general I manage the sync xxx status by volume and by operation and I m pretty happy Never had a write failure with sync disabled I pretty sure because subsequent scrubs all came up clean and VMs are OK I have had several disk failures due to hard drive failure replaced disk reslivered and all has been fine I have NOT used sync disabled during the hard drive replacement resliver procedure I DO really pay attention to SMART reports tests AND emails alerts from FreeNAS e g you can turn on email to be notified immediately on many SMART events so you don t have to wait for scrub or other failure to know a disk is failing But I do agree that running VMs on hard disk RAIDZ1 with sync always is doable but a noticeable drag on the VMs So the 2 5MB s is pretty slow is on near the edge of unacceptable for VMware VMs in general They work but if you have intense operations like a nightly backup you will get disk wait spikes fire off Nagios and other annoying behavior I just recently added an 500GB SSD drive and formatted it wish ZFS and the VMs with sync always are now running morally compared to the RAIDZ1 hard drive performance So maybe using SSD instead of regular hard drives for a particular VM volume can be a solution Random Site Note I built a 2nd FreeNAS with 6 disks RAIDZ2 using NAS 3TB Seagates intead of desktop 3TB NAS disks are 5200RPM slower than desktop 7200RPM but reported to be much more reliable The RAIDZ2 2 disks out of 6 can fail is also slower than RAIDZ1 only 1 disk of 5 can fail I believe the performance is about 20 slower So if you have sync always and 3MB per second it will drop to 2 4MB s Or sync disabled a 50MBs perf will drop to 40MBs This is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt Ken Almond Dec 30 2014 31 Offline jgreco Resident Grinch Member Since May 29 2011 Messages 8 130 Message Count 8 130 Likes Received 1 274 Trophy Points 113 Location WHO 1 ville Unixland jgreco Dec 30 2014 Ken Almond said The issue is the sync always Every write is synced Click to expand No the issue is your use of RAIDZ the VMware inability to identify critical from noncritical data therefore promotes everything to critical and then expecting magical unicorns inside your NAS to fart rainbow colored nitrous oxide to make it go at some speed you deem acceptable without actually paying for the technical capability to do it correctly If you don t care about possible corruption or data loss you can literally do whatever the hell you want and yes there are lots of ways to make it faster The moment you start to care about properly handling VM disk data to avoid the cases that can cause corruption or data loss your options become highly constrained And usually expensive or trading off speed Backups are not the same thing as making sure that your VM s don t get corrupted to begin with Making things like snapshot based backups of busy systems with databases tends to end you up with nonviable copies of the database files other systems have similar gotchas Please don t come into my informational threads and tell people that the issue is X

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/sync-writes-or-why-is-my-esxi-nfs-so-slow-and-why-is-iscsi-faster.12506/page-2 (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sharing | FreeNAS Community
    3 FC Fibre Channel Target Mode DAS SAN aran kaspar Feb 15 2015 2 3 4 Replies 76 Views 6 411 fips Jan 3 2016 SOLVED Upgrade from 9 2 current 9 3 All cifs have gone Readonly TheEditor Dec 19 2015 Replies 10 Views 218 anodos Dec 21 2015 SOLVED Can access password protected CIFS share from Linux but not Windows kaseg Dec 18 2015 Replies 4 Views 213 kaseg Dec 21 2015 SOLVED Windows 10 FreeNAS Authentication Sharing BRISKbaby Dec 19 2015 Replies 1 Views 476 anodos Dec 21 2015 SOLVED Newly created AFP share not showing in Mac Finder VictorR Dec 17 2015 Replies 2 Views 101 VictorR Dec 18 2015 SOLVED Mounting a share on OSX Alexis Dec 12 2015 Replies 4 Views 147 Robert Trevellyan Dec 15 2015 SOLVED cant access CIFS share after FreeNAS upgrade erikiiofph7 Dec 10 2015 Replies 2 Views 119 erikiiofph7 Dec 13 2015 SOLVED CIFS Adding specific group resolves to root NamoMitK Dec 10 2015 Replies 8 Views 107 NamoMitK Dec 10 2015 SOLVED Renamed CIFS share shows up twice ChiknNutz Dec 9 2015 Replies 2 Views 63 ChiknNutz Dec 9 2015 SOLVED use root Login CIFS access is denied Fei May 29 2014 Replies 4 Views 699 Fei Dec 6 2015 SOLVED CIFS share with different permissions for groups TomS Nov 10 2015 Replies 2 Views 102 TomS Nov 10 2015 SOLVED CIFS Share No Longer Browsable Chamrajnagar Oct 30 2015 Replies 2 Views 177 Chamrajnagar Oct 30 2015 SOLVED CIFS share ask for usr pw although guest access is on Neth Oct 14 2015 2 Replies 24 Views 457 pernils Oct 28 2015 SOLVED Unable to map to share after reboot Tom Luley Oct 21 2015 Replies 13 Views 220 DrKK Oct 23 2015 SOLVED Windows Previous Versions

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?forums/sharing.20/&prefix_id=2 (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • SOLVED - Browsing directories slow | FreeNAS Community
    could not get on the network the IP address was right but no network connectivity Took 3 reboots and it finnaly came back online idk maybe my card is dying Thanks again r2lee2 Apr 18 2012 9 Offline ProtoSD FreeNAS Guru Member Since Jul 1 2011 Messages 3 358 Message Count 3 358 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 38 Location Leaving FreeNAS ProtoSD Apr 18 2012 r2lee2 said When i rebooted after the initial setup I could not get on the network the IP address was right but no network connectivity Took 3 reboots and it finnaly came back online idk maybe my card is dying Click to expand That s really strange I don t think any of that stuff should cause that but I could be wrong If it happens again you could try disabling 1 setting at a time and see which one it might be I m glad to hear you re getting great results now ProtoSD Apr 18 2012 10 Offline tigerdom96 Member Since Dec 9 2011 Messages 9 Message Count 9 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 tigerdom96 May 13 2012 Hello I am experiencing the exact same problems I tried to follow your guide in how to fix this however I could make any of the changes you suggested I cannot access the Auxiliary Settings As you mentioned I tried to enable the Advanced Settings in the settings system however there was no such check box and label Any suggestions how to change the settings The loader conf in the boot directory has got no code similar to yours at the moment I tried accessing it using winscp in ftp I am using the build FreeNAS 8 0 4 RELEASE p2 x64 Best Regards tigerdom96 May 13 2012 11 Offline ProtoSD FreeNAS Guru Member Since Jul 1 2011 Messages 3 358 Message Count 3 358 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 38 Location Leaving FreeNAS ProtoSD May 13 2012 This post has been redacted ProtoSD May 13 2012 12 Offline tigerdom96 Member Since Dec 9 2011 Messages 9 Message Count 9 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 tigerdom96 May 15 2012 Hi Thanks for your reply I checked again but strangely I do not have those settings This can be seen in the screen shots One shows the lack of the options and the other the firmware number I tried the tuntables and I do not feel any difference with the browsing speed I have 4gb of ram therefore i halved all of your values Is this correct Thx a lot tigerdom96 May 15 2012 13 Offline ProtoSD FreeNAS Guru Member Since Jul 1 2011 Messages 3 358 Message Count 3 358 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 38 Location Leaving FreeNAS ProtoSD May 15 2012 This post has been redacted ProtoSD May 15 2012 14 Offline tigerdom96 Member Since Dec 9 2011 Messages 9 Message Count 9 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 tigerdom96 May 16 2012 OK thats strange I tried different browsers

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/browsing-directories-slow.5338/ (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • SOLVED - Browsing directories slow | Page 2 | FreeNAS Community
    with that Browsing directories containing 10 000 files with CIFS is giving me a headache Browsing the same directories with SSH is ok 10 000 files in one directory opens within less than a second I ve tried the hints from paleoN sysctls CIFS auxilary parameters atime Without any result Thanks anyway for your help FreeNAS 8 0 4 RELEASE p1 x64 11059 boot from USB stick 4 GB RAM 3TB 7200 RPM disks Disks are ok Long S M A R T tests Gigabit NIC is ok FreeNAS reporting rrdtool graphs via GUI tells me the system is OK and it is not swapping Any help would be appreciated This is what I ve tried Code text socket options SO RCVBUF 131072 SO SNDBUF 131072 Code text kern ipc maxsockbuf 16777216 net inet tcp recvbuf max 16777216 net inet tcp sendbuf max 16777216 thisisonlyme Jul 19 2012 28 Offline ProtoSD FreeNAS Guru Member Since Jul 1 2011 Messages 3 358 Message Count 3 358 Likes Received 8 Trophy Points 38 Location Leaving FreeNAS ProtoSD Jul 19 2012 This post has been redacted ProtoSD Jul 19 2012 29 Offline paleoN FreeNAS Guru Member Since Apr 22 2012 Messages 1 403 Message Count 1 403 Likes Received 18 Trophy Points 38 paleoN Jul 19 2012 thisisonlyme said I ve tried the hints from paleoN sysctls CIFS auxilary parameters atime Without any result Thanks anyway for your help Click to expand Unless you re Deaks2 in disguise I don t remember helping you What s more the suggestions I made were a starting point as Samba was crashing on him and not a replacement for everything protosd said It seems like you re missing quite a few of the ones I recommended you can t just mix and match them Try them all then remove or adjust them one at a time some of them work in groups or pairs Click to expand 1 Another thing to keep in mind is I never had a slow browsing problem whereas protosd did and fixed it with his settings I haven t done any in depth CIFs tuning yet either FreeNAS 9 1 1 RELEASE x64 Define XL R2 Supermicro X9SCM F O 9301 CT NIC Xeon E3 1230v2 CPU 16 GB DDR3 ECC RAM 4 x Seagate ST 2 000DM001 2 TB striped mirrors paleoN Jul 19 2012 30 Offline thisisonlyme Member Since Jul 19 2012 Messages 5 Message Count 5 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 thisisonlyme Jul 20 2012 Ok sorry for mixing some things up The thread is a sticky and is called Browsing directories slow so I was assuming this was the correct thread for my question instead of creating a new thread I ll try to add following sysctls and see what happens Code text kern maxvnodes 250000 kern coredump 0 kern dirdelay 4 vfs zfs prefetch disable 0 vfs zfs zil disable 0 vfs zfs txg timeout 5 vfs zfs txg synctime 1 vfs zfs vdev max pending 35 vfs zfs vdev min pending 4 vfs zfs txg write limit override 1073741824 vfs nfsrv async 0 net inet tcp sendbuf max 16777216 net inet tcp recvbuf max 16777216 Auxilary Code text socket options TCP NODELAY IPTOS LOWDELAY SO KEEPALIVE SO RCVBUF 98304 SO SNDBUF 98304 getwd cache yes thisisonlyme Jul 20 2012 31 Offline thisisonlyme Member Since Jul 19 2012 Messages 5 Message Count 5 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 thisisonlyme Jul 20 2012 I ve added all the sysctls and the axilary code for the CIFS sevice No difference in directory listing speed thisisonlyme Jul 20 2012 32 Offline cyberjock Forum Guard Dog Admin Member Since Mar 25 2012 Messages 18 609 Message Count 18 609 Likes Received 1 444 Trophy Points 113 cyberjock Jul 20 2012 thisisonlyme said FreeNAS 8 0 4 RELEASE p1 x64 11059 boot from USB stick 4 GB RAM 3TB 7200 RPM disks Click to expand On my home system one of my machines is limited to 100Mb network connection and when I created 10000 files in a directory it would open in less than 2 seconds with my typical system 12GB of RAM When I changed my system to 4GB of RAM the performance was terrible Have you considered upgrading the RAM 4GB is really the minimum recommended and you can NEVER have too much RAM Edit How many 3TB drives do you have The thumbrule is 4GB 1GB for each TB of storage space on your zpool Something tells me your system may be starved for RAM Hardware recommendations RAID5 RAIDZ1 is dead Read my guide It answers common questions newbies to FreeNAS have Only you can prevent flame wars Read the FreeNAS manual SpoilerTarget Show My Main System FreeNAS 9 3 STABLE whatever is the latest Intel Xeon E3 1230v2 Supermicro X9SCM F 32GB DDR3 ECC 1600 RAM 32GB SATA DOM Cyberpower 1500AVR Ten WD Red WD60EFRX NAS Hard Drives RAIDZ2 40 9TB usable space 10GbE Chelsio adapter cyberjock Jul 20 2012 33 Offline thisisonlyme Member Since Jul 19 2012 Messages 5 Message Count 5 Likes Received 0 Trophy Points 1 thisisonlyme Jul 20 2012 Thank you for your answer noobsauce80 I have 4 x 3 Terabyte disks in a RAID Z2 pool The zpool is 5 8 Terabyte I now have 4 Gygabyte RAM but your rule means I should need 9 or 10 Gigabyte of RAM I didn t knew about that thumbrule Sorry When I open the Reporting from the FreeNAS WebGUI I can see the physical memory is used 100 leaving 100 megabyte free but swap is 100 free thisisonlyme Jul 20 2012 34 Offline Deaks2 Member Since Jun 30 2012 Messages 12 Message Count 12 Likes Received 1 Trophy Points 3 Deaks2 Jul 20 2012 Good day everyone Sorry for not checking in lately I still have an issue with directory listings I disabled aitime and did not see a noticible improvement On my Win7 machine I changed the folder customization to

    Original URL path: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/browsing-directories-slow.5338/page-2 (2016-02-01)
    Open archived version from archive