Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:44:00 +1000 From: "Dewayne Geraghty" <dewayne.geraghty@heuristicsystems.com.au> To: "'Alfred Perlstein'" <alfred@ixsystems.com>, "'Outback Dingo'" <outbackdingo@gmail.com>, "'Andre Oppermann'" <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, nonesuch@longcount.org Subject: RE: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 Message-ID: <599A041529924ED191731A6175097128@white> In-Reply-To: <60A37C45-B4BA-4F25-8A43-F09FE0A44453@ixsystems.com> 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> <CAKYr3zxeOCssSq3mouz%2BNWC5-vvAReP2oueU8bFFgFhrmi-dzQ@mail.gmail.com> <60A37C45-B4BA-4F25-8A43-F09FE0A44453@ixsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Alfred > Perlstein > Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2013 2:05 AM > To: Outback Dingo > Cc: re@freebsd.org; stable@freebsd.org; Andre Oppermann; > nonesuch@longcount.org > Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 > > 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. > > 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 > <outbackdingo@gmail.com> 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 > <andre@freebsd.org> 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" > > > _______________________________________________ > 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" It might be relevant that there were performance changes to nullfs (caching) code back in January and updated in May by Kib. Because I use jails and nullfs extensively, the nullfs enhancement demanded an increase in maxvodes, otherwise performance degraded, quite badly. Tripling the default suited my needs on 4GB systems, but I don't have an algorithmic recommendation; as for me it depends on the role/purpose of the server. If vnodes is an issue *and* you use mount_nullfs, another approach is to disable caching via "mount_nullfs -o nocache" as this may help to narrow the cause. Ref: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/sys/fs/nullfs/null_subr.c?view=log http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-9/2013-May/004531.html And thank-you for your work on http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-9/2013-August/005307.html Regards, Dewayne.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?599A041529924ED191731A6175097128>