Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: ZFSOnLinux 0.6.2 released

  1. #1

    Default ZFSOnLinux 0.6.2 released

    ZFSOnLinux 0.6.2 was tagged yesterday. The following distributions should already have the latest packages:

    • Gentoo
    • Funtoo
    • RHEL/CentOS (ZFSOnLinux repository)
    • Fedora (ZFSOnLinux Repository)
    • Ubuntu (ZFSOnLinux PPA)


    Release notes are available on the ZFSOnLinux mailing list:

    https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlin...ce/DOAuSF7kjsU

    This release notes list numerous bug fixes and several new features. The changes that should be most visible to end-users are:

    • Increased read performance on mirrors (by queuing reads to the least busy device)
    • Increased IOPS Performance when using L2ARC (by doing LZ4 compression)
    • Linux 3.10 and Linux 3.11 compatibility
    • GRSecurity/PaX compatiblity (Linux 3.8 and later; earlier versions were fine)
    • User name space compatibility (Linux 3.8 and later; earlier versions were fine)


    In addition, ZFSOnLinux now has an internal database of drives known to misreport sector size information, which should improve the performance of pools made by people unaware of ashift whenever they use hardware listed in the database. For those who are unaware, there is an internal setting called ashift (alignment shift) that is set internally at vdev creation (pools are made out of vdevs). This determines the layout of the disk format such that the minimum block size is 2^ashift. ZFS automatically picks the value of ashift by calculating the base-2 logarithm of drives' reported physical sector size (512-bytes is 9; 4096-bytes is 12) and using the largest one found in a vdev; this makes ashift analogous to blocksize in other filesystems. In an ideal world, this would be sufficient ensure vdevs are always created with proper alignment. Unfortunately, most (all?) SSDs and some advanced format disks misreport their sector sizes for Windows XP compatibility. ZFSOnLinux allows system administrators to override ashift at vdev/pool creation to ensure that the proper value is used, but ZFS will suffer from a fairly severe misalignment penalty on such hardware when this is not done. Other filesystems tend to default to a 4096-byte sector size, regardless of what the drive reports.

    The new database does not include every drive that misreports sector size information, but it covers dozens of drives that do and it will grow as users contact me with missing entries. Instructions for those who wish to contribute are available on the mailing list. Note that the link to the database is outdated. The current database is visible in the repository.

    https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlin...g/qCygxkVWam4J
    https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/bl...ol_vdev.c#L108

    The hardware used in Phoronix benchmarks is known to misreport its sector size. Last year, Michael informed me that ZFSOnLinux had to fix this for him. I am happy to state that is now the case. This should make Phoronix's benchmarks more accurately compare ZFSOnLinux' real world single-disk performance in synthetic benchmarks with that of other filesystems.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Default

    perfect timing, ryao !

    Just was researching when the next stable release was going to get out to install on my dad's box

    (last stable on the ubuntu ppa is/was already more than 20 weeks old and recent snapshot might be too much work in case there's some issues ... )

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    you could always use the gentoo ebuilds :P

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    642

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    you could always use the gentoo ebuilds :P
    on Gentoo, which is my main production system, I do (I even use the live-/9999-ebuilds )

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    on Gentoo, which is my main production system, I do (I even use the live-/9999-ebuilds )
    For the moment, the 9999 ebuilds are effectively the same as the 0.6.2 ebuilds. The only difference is that the 0.6.2 SPL ebuild includes a patch for FreeBSD-style hostid detection that upstream has not adopted.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Just found this thread after Michael's most recent non-representative ZFS benchmark. And of course he managed to find an Intel SSD that's not in the blacklist. You might want to check the FreeBSD 4k quirks (ADA_Q_4K) list from ata_da.c to boost your list.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    Just found this thread after Michael's most recent non-representative ZFS benchmark. And of course he managed to find an Intel SSD that's not in the blacklist. You might want to check the FreeBSD 4k quirks (ADA_Q_4K) list from ata_da.c to boost your list.
    Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the formats are not interchangeable. While entries can be copied from our list into FreeBSD, the reverse is not the case. It also does not make a distinction between drives with 4KB sectors and 8KB sectors.

    On a semi-related note, FreeBSD currently uses that list solely to adjust stripe size, which ZFS does not use.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryao View Post
    Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the formats are not interchangeable. While entries can be copied from our list into FreeBSD, the reverse is not the case. It also does not make a distinction between drives with 4KB sectors and 8KB sectors.

    On a semi-related note, FreeBSD currently uses that list solely to adjust stripe size, which ZFS does not use.
    Yeah, I realize they don't differentiate between 4KB and 8KB, which is somewhat problematic. On incompatibility, matching via pattern would seem to be a much more sensible idea, otherwise your list needs to be enormous for minor model variations, and it will take a seriously long time to catalogue them all. You'll also need to make changes every time a minor model rev is released, which going forward is likely to be every device released, until they stop lying, which could be a seriously long time. I understand the current method is more accurate, but it's also a maintenance nightmare, and specificity is pretty simply controlled by list order if you need to override an existing pattern for a special-case device. Also, since matching only happens very infrequently, the performance difference should have negligible impact.

    I actually sort of wonder if it wouldn't have been a better idea to just go ashift=12 by default and potentially have a blacklist for true 512B devices.
    Last edited by pdffs; 08-29-2013 at 08:58 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    I actually sort of wonder if it wouldn't have been a better idea to just go ashift=12 by default and potentially have a blacklist for true 512B devices.
    Aren't there several decades worth of 512B devices in use? Or do you mean SSDs only?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Aren't there several decades worth of 512B devices in use? Or do you mean SSDs only?
    But how many of them are in use with a filesystem that's only been viable for the past couple of years?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •