this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024

31 points (97.0% liked)

Selfhosted

39227 readers

371 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Mirror seeing half the write IOPS on one disk than the other, is this normal? (discourse.practicalzfs.com)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by lightrush@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm syncoiding from my normal RAIDz2 to a backup mirror made of 2 disks. I looked at zpool iostat and I noticed that one of the disks consistently shows less than half the write IOPS of the other:

                                        capacity     operations     bandwidth 
pool                                  alloc   free   read  write   read  write
------------------------------------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
storage-volume-backup                 5.03T  11.3T      0    867      0   330M
  mirror-0                            5.03T  11.3T      0    867      0   330M
    wwn-0x5000c500e8736faf                -      -      0    212      0   164M
    wwn-0x5000c500e8737337                -      -      0    654      0   165M

This is also evident in iostat:

     f/s f_await  aqu-sz  %util Device
    0.00    0.00    3.48  46.2% sda
    0.00    0.00    8.10  99.7% sdb

The difference is also evident in the temperatures of the disks. The busier disk is 4 degrees warmer than the other. The disks are identical on paper and bought at the same time.

Is this behaviour expected?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I put the low IOPS disk in a good USB 3 enclosure, hooked to an on-CPU USB controller. Now things are flipped:

                                        capacity     operations     bandwidth 
pool                                  alloc   free   read  write   read  write
------------------------------------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
storage-volume-backup                 12.6T  3.74T      0    563      0   293M
  mirror-0                            12.6T  3.74T      0    563      0   293M
    wwn-0x5000c500e8736faf                -      -      0    406      0   146M
    wwn-0x5000c500e8737337                -      -      0    156      0   146M

You might be right about the link problem.

Looking at the B350 diagram, the whole chipset is hooked via PCIe 3.0 x4 link to the CPU. The other pool (the source) is hooked via USB controller on the chipset. The SATA controller is also on the chipset so it also shares the chipset-CPU link. I'm pretty sure I'm also using all the PCIe links the chipset provides for SSDs. So that's 4GB/s total for the whole chipset. Now I'm probably not saturating the whole link, in this particular workload, but perhaps there's might be another related bottleneck.

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I'm not fully familiar with the overheads associated with all things going on on a chipset, but it's not unreasonable to think that this workload, plus whatever the chipset has to do (hardware management tasks mostly), as well as the CPU's other tasks on similar interfaces that might saturate the IO die/controller, would influence this.

B350 isn't a very fast chipset to begin with, and I'm willing to bet the CPU in such a motherboard isn't exactly current-gen either. Are you sure you're even running at PCIe 3.0 speeds too? There are 2.0 only CPUs available for AM4.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

B350 isn’t a very fast chipset to begin with

For sure.

I’m willing to bet the CPU in such a motherboard isn’t exactly current-gen either.

Reasonable bet, but it's a Ryzen 9 5950X with 64GB of RAM. I'm pretty proud of how far I've managed to stretch this board. 😆 At this point I'm waiting for blown caps, but the case temp is pretty low so it may end up trucking along for surprisingly long time.

Are you sure you’re even running at PCIe 3.0 speeds too?

So given the CPU, it should be PCIe 3.0, but that doesn't remove any of the queues/scheduling suspicions for the chipset.

I'm now replicating data out of this pool and the read load looks perfectly balanced. Bandwidth's fine too. I think I have no choice but to benchmark the disks individually outside of ZFS once I'm done with this operation in order to figure out whether any show problems. If not, they'll go in the spares bin.

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh wow congrats, I'm currently in the struggle of stretching an ab350m to accept a 4600G and failing.

You're right, you should hit PCIe 3 speeds and it's weird, but the fact that the drives swap speeds depending on how they're plugged in points to either drivers or the chipset.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

On paper it should support it. I'm assuming it's the ASRock AB350M. With a certain BIOS version of course. What's wrong with it?

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's a gigabyte ab350m gaming-3 rev 1.0. it boots grub fine but then crashes right after displaying "loading Linux 6.x", CPU led flashes then dram led stays on, I have to turn it off with the PSU switch.

Either it's a rev 1.0 bug which is a thing on those motherboards, or the CPU (or igpu) is defective.

https://superuser.com/questions/1854228/proxmox-doesnt-boot-after-cpu-change

I'm currently waiting on support from both the seller and gigabyte but I don't expect anything out of it, though I'm still yet to test it in a different motherboard.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

I think the board has reached the end of the road. 😅

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Iiinteresting. I'm on the larger AB350-Gaming 3 and it's got REV: 1.0 printed on it. No problems with the 5950X so far. 🤐 Either sheer luck or there could have been updated units before they officially changed the rev marking.

load more comments (3 replies)