From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 19 17:44:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172BAD07; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewayne.geraghty@heuristicsystems.com.au) Received: from nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com (nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com [61.9.189.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7527A2DB1; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nschwcmgw07p ([61.9.190.167]) by nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20130819174406.UCZN26428.nschwmtas01p.mx.bigpond.com@nschwcmgw07p>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:44:06 +0000 Received: from hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au ([58.172.113.247]) by nschwcmgw07p with BigPond Outbound id Ehk51m00m5LKYmq01hk5Yf; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:44:06 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=BKIxXSsG c=1 sm=1 a=YibVxx38Z+cwdCKSMcELyg==:17 a=fcoDNVXHk7YA:10 a=twTT4oUKOlYA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=GHIR_BbyAAAA:8 a=RkfuZluHp9YA:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=AJXH2NDoAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=3wrpl_rMAAAA:8 a=oaMygKfnqr2rQO91IgwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ToTgkvZuvYcA:10 a=YYNshLi5cB4A:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=OvYue0-Hx4cA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=V2UAm2ivfr4A:10 a=cOrNRyrM_yyE6etO:21 a=mWyifcUv5VTfPwP3:21 a=YibVxx38Z+cwdCKSMcELyg==:117 Received: from white (white.hs [10.0.5.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au (8.14.5/8.13.6) with ESMTP id r7JHi0Dr016235; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:44:00 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from dewayne.geraghty@heuristicsystems.com.au) From: "Dewayne Geraghty" To: "'Alfred Perlstein'" , "'Outback Dingo'" , "'Andre Oppermann'" 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> Subject: RE: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 03:44:00 +1000 Message-ID: <599A041529924ED191731A6175097128@white> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <60A37C45-B4BA-4F25-8A43-F09FE0A44453@ixsystems.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Ac6c9eyO3YBNy2uXQrmKzD/2gA23UgACPDCw Cc: stable@freebsd.org, nonesuch@longcount.org 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 17:44:15 -0000 > -----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 > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alfred Perlstein > 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" > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.