Project

General

Profile

Bug #66531

Memory consumption

Added by Cyril PICCHIOTTINO 11 months ago. Updated 10 months ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
No priority
Assignee:
Alexander Motin
Category:
OS
Target version:
Severity:
New
Reason for Closing:
User Configuration Error
Reason for Blocked:
Needs QA:
No
Needs Doc:
No
Needs Merging:
No
Needs Automation:
No
Support Suite Ticket:
n/a
Hardware Configuration:
ChangeLog Required:
No

Description

Hello,

Copying a large amount of files (around 100 000 ; 500 Gb) from 2 NAS using Windows Explorer, i got :
- very slow response time after une hour of copy (50 Mb to less than 1 Mb)
- high memory consumption on freeNas server

If I cancel the transfer, memory seems not to be flushed on the server and the system is globally slow. I solved this with a reboot.

Cyril
FreeNas memory.JPG (20.3 KB) FreeNas memory.JPG Cyril PICCHIOTTINO, 12/30/2018 12:57 AM
46857

History

#1 Updated by Dru Lavigne 11 months ago

  • Status changed from Unscreened to Blocked
  • Private changed from No to Yes
  • Reason for Blocked set to Need additional information from Author

Cyril: please attach a debug (System -> Advanced -> Save debug) to this ticket.

#2 Updated by Cyril PICCHIOTTINO 11 months ago

  • File debug-colleen-20181230142925.tgz added

Hello,

Here it is.

I try also with robocopy with the same issues.

Cyril.

#3 Updated by Dru Lavigne 11 months ago

  • Status changed from Blocked to Unscreened
  • Assignee changed from Release Council to Alexander Motin
  • Reason for Blocked deleted (Need additional information from Author)

#4 Updated by Alexander Motin 10 months ago

  • Status changed from Unscreened to Closed
  • Target version changed from Backlog to N/A
  • Reason for Closing set to User Configuration Error
  • Needs QA changed from Yes to No
  • Needs Doc changed from Yes to No
  • Needs Merging changed from Yes to No

As I see, at the time of the debug taken several of your pools has been scrubbed. Considering those are single disk pools, it is not very surprising that it affected performance. I don't know your motivation, but instead of 6 separate one-disk pools you should better create one or few pools of few disks. It would give you better performance and maybe, depending on used layout, reliability.

Also I see that your SATA controller is configured for legacy (not AHCI) mode, that means lack of NCQ, i.e. that each disk can execute only one command at a time. Also 4 of your disks share 2 virtual legacy ATA ports, and so also can't work simultaneously.

What's about memory consumption, I see nothing interesting -- all memory available in system must be used for top efficiency, so unless you have excessive swapping or application errors, there is no problem.

#5 Updated by Dru Lavigne 10 months ago

  • File deleted (debug-colleen-20181230142925.tgz)

#6 Updated by Dru Lavigne 10 months ago

  • Private changed from Yes to No

Also available in: Atom PDF