For synchronous write workloads with large IO sizes, a pool configured
with a slog performs worse than one with an embedded zil:
sequential_writes 1m sync ios, 16 threads
Write IOPS: 1292 438 -66.10%
Write Bandwidth: 1323570 448910 -66.08%
Write Latency: 12128400 36330970 3.0x
sequential_writes 1m sync ios, 32 threads
Write IOPS: 1293 430 -66.74%
Write Bandwidth: 1324184 441188 -66.68%
Write Latency: 24486278 74028536 3.0x
The reason is the `zil_slog_bulk` variable. In `zil_lwb_write_open`,
if a zil block is greater than 768K, the priority of the write is
downgraded from sync to async. Increasing the value allows greater
throughput. To select a value for this PR, I ran an fio workload with
the following values for `zil_slog_bulk`:
zil_slog_bulk KiB/s
1048576 422132
2097152 478935
4194304 533645
8388608 623031
12582912 827158
16777216 1038359
25165824 1142210
33554432 1211472
50331648 1292847
67108864 1308506
100663296 1306821
134217728 1304998
At 64M, the results with a slog are now improved to parity with an
embedded zil:
sequential_writes 1m sync ios, 16 threads
Write IOPS: 438 1288 2.9x
Write Bandwidth: 448910 1319062 2.9x
Write Latency: 36330970 12163408 -66.52%
sequential_writes 1m sync ios, 32 threads
Write IOPS: 430 1290 3.0x
Write Bandwidth: 441188 1321693 3.0x
Write Latency: 74028536 24519698 -66.88%
None of the other tests in the performance suite (run with a zil or
slog) had a significant change, including the random_write_zil tests,
which use multiple datasets.
Reviewed-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com>
Signed-off-by: John Wren Kennedy <john.kennedy@delphix.com>
Closes#14378
6d693e20a2