From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 17 01:37:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CA816A4CE; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from TRANG.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4396343D41; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:37:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by TRANG.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7H1b010088938; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:37:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i7H1b0K7088937; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:37:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:37:00 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20040817013700.GB88749@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200408160835.i7G8ZM6d068546@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040816232834.GF57908@elvis.mu.org> <20040817011018.GA67171@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040816191337.B32601@pooker.samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040816191337.B32601@pooker.samsco.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/include vmparam.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:37:02 -0000 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 07:21:39PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:28:34PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > * David E. O'Brien [040816 01:35] wrote: > > > > obrien 2004-08-16 08:35:22 UTC > > > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > > > Modified files: > > > > sys/i386/include vmparam.h > > > > Log: > > > > Increase the scaling of VM_KMEM_SIZE_MAX. > > > > > > Is there any chance we can scale up the max sockets/maxfiles a bit? > > > > > > I've found that for simple benchmarks, doubling or quadrupling > > > didn't see to cause any instability would make us look better out > > > of the box. > > > > The increase of VM_KMEM_SIZE_MAX is prevent (help delay?) panics on 4GB > > i386 systems. Do you have benchmark data suggesting what would be better > > values for max sockets/maxfiles? > > The whole point of dynamic limits was to help auto-tune the system using > the assumption that someone who spends money on more RAM is likely to have > a workload that is more server-oriented (and thus needs more sockets > and/or vnodes). The limit that you committed was based on an off-handed > comment that I made with the intention of getting the number to a value > so low that it would be very safe. Why you are committing numbers without > doing your own extensive benchmarking and testing is quite beyond me. The > reason that this wasn't done yet by someone else is not because everyone > is lazy, it's because it's a very hard and time-consuming problem to solve. > Stealing numbers out of thin air is easy but not really conducive to having > a well-performing system. I thought that you would understand and > appreciate this already. > > I'm also unclear on why you are raising VM_KMEM_SIZE_MAX but arguing with The VM_KMEM_SIZE_MAX change came straight from Alan Cox to try to stop the bi-daily panics I was getting on a 4GB machine. Sorry that I'm trying to do something about our piss-poor stability. I bench marched this change using 'uptime'. > Alfred over raising kern.maxvnodes. They have a close relationship to > each other, and I don't see why you are resistant to recognise that. Where the 'F' is this comming from?? I don't know why you think I am arguing or pushing back on Alfred. I *WELCOME* people actually thinking about our dynamic "auto-tune" limits. I just wanted to know if he had some interested data for what ever values he'd propose. Some of our "auto-tuning" hasn't 't been revisited in a long time -- back when 128MB was "large": ---------------------------- revision 1.29 date: 1998-02-23 07:42:40; author: dyson; state: Exp; lines: +18 -2 Try to dynamically size the VM_KMEM_SIZE (but is still able to be ... Two new options "VM_KMEM_SIZE_SCALE" and "VM_KMEM_SIZE_MAX" have been added to support better auto-sizing for systems with greater than 128MB. ---------------------------- Everytime I've asked you and phk how we should be deriving some of these values all I get is "I don't know, but how we do it today isn't very good". -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)