From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 19 16:19:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2217B74; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:19:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from outbackdingo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3EB289F; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id ta17so5754780obb.18 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZgN/u0PBUPag1Bl0zMCBgL03Z5MhzsQ+sMCEA/zlWDs=; b=RjeOUYGUkJ66aGC/kbu3IcTqbE4qCKmcTpwF8zlit4oWpEyXoIL1hJ2onydHW14QBA RU4+tb8MsleGXnjV01Jz7Zw21Amqk+RLOVgGfSfIqo6JxI2g2lvuvdauQQHxOm+noFFb 2DFLQ6mfa2qEuYQse27BF/8kF1ZnuT//1cRpoOeSjSJQLnAMirnciVlmy7noGLr6GBlm iNRQRHy+1QoD75xvnRnj+UREkVeALL4lq8eaBhfaBz1PJ8lIbPfpe947IBK28Q3FsvRk kHCAQocdHHB2DuFqPtoBUcTr+69adMPq3eCjeVyWXdqb8k83vO8aHzulEDP9yXErPYY7 31aQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.50.200 with SMTP id e8mr14135997obo.35.1376929167855; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.2.110 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52124502.3050405@freebsd.org> References: <51D90B9B.9080209@ixsystems.com> <51D92826.1070707@freebsd.org> <51D9B24B.8070303@ixsystems.com> <51DACE93.9050608@freebsd.org> <520DC77C.1070003@ixsystems.com> <520DE306.4080004@freebsd.org> <5211EAD0.1060404@freebsd.org> <19B7F957-EF1D-4452-986A-3F4C51CA647E@ixsystems.com> <60A37C45-B4BA-4F25-8A43-F09FE0A44453@ixsystems.com> <52124502.3050405@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:19:27 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 From: Outback Dingo To: Andre Oppermann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: "stable@freebsd.org" , "nonesuch@longcount.org" , Alfred Perlstein X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:19:29 -0000 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 19.08.2013 18:09, Outback Dingo wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Alfred Perlstein > > wrote: >> >> Performance is bad for large memory requirements period. >> >> Vnodes and mbufs on a machine with 24gb ram is limited to the same >> amount as a machine with less >> than 4GB ram. >> >> This was fixed in head but not merged back in time. >> >> >> is there a patch set i can backport on my own, do we know what >> revision(s) are required? Ive got >> boxes with >> 128GB and 10Gbe Intel....... so im willing to do some work...... >> > > I have committed it to 9-stable this morning with r254515. No backporting > necessary. > > Okay so wait, your saying the autotune commit this morning resolves Alfreds claims of abysmal performance in general, or is there other additional fixes in head aside from the autotune hes mentioning > -- > Andre > > This results in poor out of the box performance on 10gige and servers >> with high vnode requirements. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:30 AM, Outback Dingo > > wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alfred Perlstein < >>> alfred@ixsystems.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Andre Oppermann >> > wrote: >>> >>> > On 16.08.2013 10:29, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> >> On 16.08.2013 08:32, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> >>> Andre, I'm kind of bummed out this didn't make it into 9.2, >>> I'm wondering can I commit >>> this to >>> >>> 9-stable now? (or is it already in?) >>> >> >>> >> It didn't make it because there was only sparse feedback >>> after the >>> >> call for testers. There were a couple of replies that it is >>> being >>> >> tested but no statements either way if it was good or not. >>> Hence >>> >> I erred on the side of caution and refrained from committing >>> it. >>> > >>> > Revisiting the history of this after vacation absence actually >>> shows >>> > that we straddled the release code freeze deadline and you had >>> provided >>> > good testing feedback. However the MFC got rejected by RE on >>> the fear >>> > of introducing unknown regressions into the release process. >>> > >>> >>> Would you do the honors? >>> >> >>> >> Yes, will do later today. >>> > >>> > Committed to stable/9 as r254515. >>> > >>> > Let me know if there are any issues. >>> >>> Thanks Andre. >>> >>> Maybe we can do a point release/patch release with this in a >>> few weeks for 9.2.1 or 9.2p1 >>> because 9.2 out of the box performance is abysmal not only in >>> networking but also disk as >>> maxvnodes is clipped way too small even with plenty of ram. >>> >>> >>> So your saying, 9.2-RELEASE performance suffers degradation against >>> say 9.1 ?? are you >>> referring to with this patch enabled? or just in general 9.2-RELEASE >>> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Andre >>> > >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > >>> mailing list >>> >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**stable >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@** >>> freebsd.org >>> >>> >" >>> >>> >>> >> >