Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a server with ESXi 5 and iSCSI attached network storage. The storage server has 4x1Tb SATA II disks in Raid-Z on freenas 8.0.4. Those two machines are connected to each other with Gigabit ethernet, isolated from everything else. There is no switch in between. The SAN box itself is a 1U supermicro server with a Intel Pentium D at 3 GHz and 2 Gigs of memory. The disks are connected to a integrated controller (Intel something?).

The raid-z volume is divided into three parts: two zvols, shared with iscsi, and one directly on top of zfs, shared with nfs and similar.

I ssh'd into the freeNAS box, and did some testing on the disks. I used ddto test the third part of the disks (straight on top of ZFS). I copied a 4GB (2x the amount of RAM) block from /dev/zero to the disk, and the speed was 80MB/s.

Other of the iSCSI shared zvols is a datastore for the ESXi. I did similar test with time dd .. there. Since the dd there did not give the speed, I divided the amount of data transfered by the time show by time. The result was around 30-40 MB/s. Thats about half of the speed from the freeNAS host!

Then I tested the IO on a VM running on the same ESXi host. The VM was a light CentOS 6.0 machine, which was not really doing anything else at that time. There were no other VMs running on the server at the time, and the other two "parts" of the disk array were not used. A similar dd test gave me result of about 15-20 MB/s. That is again about half of the result on a lower level!

Of course the is some overhead in raid-z -> zfs -> zvolume -> iSCSI -> VMFS -> VM, but I don't expect it to be that big. I belive there must be something wrong in my system.

I have heard about bad performance of freeNAS's iSCSI, is that it? I have not managed to get any other "big" SAN OS to run on the box (NexentaSTOR, openfiler).

Can you see any obvious problems with my setup?

share|improve this question
One other test you should do is to attach the iSCSI LUN as an RDM to the VM and write to the RDM attached LUN with 2x(VM RAM + SAN RAM) data. –  nearora Jun 11 '12 at 2:18
add comment

4 Answers

To speed this up you're going to need more RAM. I'd start with these some incremental improvements.

Firstly, speed up the filesystem: 1) ZFS needs much more RAM than you have to make use of the ARC cache. The more the better. If you can increase it at least 8GB or more then you should see quite an improvement. Ours have 64GB in them.

2) Next, I would add a ZIL Log disk, i.e. a small SSD drive of around 20GB. Use an SLC type rather than MLC. The recommendation is to use 2 ZIL disks for redundancy. This will speed up writes tremendously.

3) Add an L2ARC disk. This can consist of a good sized SSD e.g. a 250GB MLC drive would be suitable. Technically speaking, a L2ARC is not needed. However, it's usually cheaper to add a large amount of fast SSD storage than more primary RAM. But, start with as much RAM as you can fit/afford first.

There are a number of websites around that claim to help with zfs tuning in general and these parameters/variables may be set through the GUI. Worth looking into/trying.

Also, consult the freenas forums. You may receive better support there than you will here.

Secondly: You can speed up the network. If you happen to have multiple NIC interfaces in your supermicro server. You can channel bond them to give you almost double the network throughput and some redundancy. http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1004088

share|improve this answer
If you look closer at the system specs, this is an older Pentium D system running four consumer-level disks. I don't think there's an easy option for the best-practice L2ARC or ZIL devices on the class of hardware the OP is describing. The chipset probably doesn't accommodate more than 8GB of RAM. I still suspect disk alignment. Networking probably isn't the bottleneck since 80MBps is the best the setup can do locally. –  ewwhite Jun 11 '12 at 0:50
You might be right, sorry I didn't realise it was that old. In which case that's probably all it's capable of. An SSD may help but a new server would be better if it's that important. –  Matt Jun 11 '12 at 4:21
I can get the 80 MB/s from ZFS, which I think is okay with that system. So I think it is not a ZFS issue (or is it?). I have not tested how fast the zvols are, though. I believe the biggest issue would be in my iSCSI or VMWare VMFS. –  Esa Varemo Jun 11 '12 at 9:36
Part of this answer might be good under a question that's currently in Super User: For L2ARC and ZIL: is it better to have one large SSD for both, or two smaller SSDs?. –  Graham Perrin Oct 7 '12 at 18:42
add comment

Some suggestions.

  • RAID 1+0 or ZFS mirrors typically perform better than RAIDZ.
  • You don't mention the actual specifications of your storage server, but what is your CPU type/speed, RAM amount and storage controller?
  • Is there a network switch involved? Is the storage on its own network, isolated from VM traffic?

I'd argue that 80 Megabytes/second is slow for a direct test on the FreeNAS system. You may have a disk problem. Are you using "Advanced Format" or 4K-sector disks? If so, there could be partition alignment issues that will affect your performance.

share|improve this answer
I added some specs to the question. I have considered RAID 1+0 like system, but I'm not really in the mood of buying bigger disks at the current prices. –  Esa Varemo Jun 10 '12 at 22:51
I don't think you'll be able to get much more performance out of the setup you've described. –  ewwhite Jun 10 '12 at 23:30
For the consumer disks the 80 MB/s is okay, I think, but what I am conserned about is how it disappears on the way to the ESXi. Are that kind of overheads normal then? –  Esa Varemo Jun 11 '12 at 9:28
I don't think 1 TB disks would have 4k-sectors. But then again, alignment issues might occur through ZFS volume block size (8K) being mis-aligned with ESXi partitions. On the other hand, alignment issues should by large not impair sequential transfers which typically would happen with a block size >> 8K. –  syneticon-dj Jun 11 '12 at 9:46
I have a bunch of 1TB 4K-sector disks being used with ZFS. Local performance was awful until I realigned/formatted with a modified version of zpool. These disks are common at the consumer level these days. Newer operating systems (including VMWare) can recognize and align properly. But special care needs to be taken with ZFS. The original poster never provided the hard drive make/model, so we don't know for sure. –  ewwhite Jun 11 '12 at 12:02
add comment

What you are probably seeing is not a translation overhead but a performance hit due to a different access pattern. Sequential writes to a ZFS volume would simply create a nearly-sequential data stream to be written to your underlying physical disks. Sequential writes to a VMFS datastore on top of a ZFS volume would create a data stream which is "pierced" by metadata updates of the VMFS filesystem structure and frequent sync / cache flush requests for this very metadata. Sequential writes to a virtual disk from within a client again would add more "piercing" of your sequential stream due to the guest's file system metadata.

The cure usually prescribed in these situations would be enabling of a write cache which would ignore cache flush requests. It would alleviate the random-write and sync issues and improve the performance you see in your VM guests. Keep in mind however that your data integrity would be at risk if the cache would not be capable of persisting across power outages / sudden reboots.

You could easily test if you are hitting your disk's limits by issuing something like iostat -xd 5 on your FreeNAS box and looking at the queue sizes and utilization statistics of your underlying physical devices. Running esxtop in disk device mode also should help you getting a clue about what is going on by showing disk utilization statistics from the ESX side.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I currently use FreeNas 8 with two Raid 5 sSata arrays attached off the server. The server has 8GB of ram and two single core Intel Xeon processors.

My performance has been substantially different to what others have experienced.

I am not using MPIO or any load balancing on NICs. Just a single Intel GIGE 10/100/1000 server NIC.

Both arrays have five 2.0TB drives equating to roughly 7.5 TB of space RAID5.

I utilize these two arrays for two different functions:

1) Array #1 is attached to an Intel HPC server running Centos 5.8 and PostGres. The file system is ext4. I have been able to get a peak of 800 Mbps/sec to this array.

2) Array #2 is being used for Citrix Xenserver 6 Centos VMs. These 200GB drive partitions are providing outstanding performance. Each of the VMs are running real-time SIP signaling servers that are supporting 5-10K concurrent calls at 500-1000 CPS. The local database writes the CDRs to these partitions before the main database server copies them into it's tables. I have been able to also get a peak of 800 Mbps/sec to this array.

Now, I would not suggest using a FreeNas iSCSI array as my mainstay solution for large database partitions. I have that running on a 10K RPM SAS Raid 10 partition on the database server.

But, there is absolutely no reason that you cannot send your data traffic across a simple switched Ethernet network to a reasonably configured server running FreeNAS and send it at the theoretical peak of GIGE.

I have yet to test the read throughput, but RAID5 is slower on reads. So, it should be as good or better.

FreeNAS consistently scales well as more traffic demands are made of it. Any CentOS 5.8 server is going to use it's own cache to buffer the data before sending it to the iSCSI arrays. So, make sure you have ample memory on your VM hosts and you will be happy with your performance.

Nothing tests a technology better than database applications and real-time traffic applications in my opinion.

I too think that adding a system memory write-through cache feature would be beneficial, but my performance numbers show that FreeNAS and iSCSI are performing stellar!

It can only get better.

share|improve this answer
Interesting to hear, even though it really doesn't answer my problem? –  Esa Varemo Jul 23 '12 at 15:36
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.