Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:42:53 +0200 (CEST) From: "Pascal Drecker" <e31@gmx.net> To: "Johan Hendriks" <joh.hendriks@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@ixsystems.com> Subject: Aw: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 Message-ID: <trinity-0aface3a-147f-4fc1-ab62-a2c25cedce96-1374003773426@3capp-gmx-bs30> In-Reply-To: <CAOaKuAVxApLLntQ0dqtGWGveveFXyHd6D_%2BVtG%2BfctszKnwF4Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <51D90B9B.9080209@ixsystems.com> <51D92826.1070707@freebsd.org> <51E1061F.3050804@ixsystems.com> <51E398F3.40008@freebsd.org> <51E3EEAA.3040106@freebsd.org> <51E3EFA8.1050606@ixsystems.com> <20130715141300.GA1986@glenbarber.us> <51E41419.3040503@ixsystems.com>, <CAOaKuAVxApLLntQ0dqtGWGveveFXyHd6D_%2BVtG%2BfctszKnwF4Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Op maandag 15 juli 2013 schreef Alfred Perlstein (alfred@ixsystems.com) het > volgende: > >> On 7/15/13 7:13 AM, Glen Barber wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:48:40AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/15/13 5:44 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 15.07.2013 08:38, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 13.07.2013 09:47, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Andre, we have a number of people running this patch in the >>>>>>> following configurations: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6-8GB ram + 10gigE ethernet using iozone over NFS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> As you haven't seen any problems yet I've asked RE to green light >>>>>> the MFC. >>>>>> >>>>> RE has rejected the MFC out of fears for unexpected regressions. >>>>> >>>>> That is unfortunate. I guess re@ doesn't understand that FreeBSD >>>> 9.2 will be unusable out of the box for doing 10gigE for more than a >>>> few microseconds. >>>> >>>> Can we not just do my original patch that has the check for 64bit >>>> pointers before unscaling maxusers? That would be dirt simple and >>>> just work with minimal risk. >>>> >>>> IMHO, this is considered a new feature, and not a critical bug fix. re@ >>> asked from the start of the code slush to avoid new features, and at >>> this point, it is too late. It is not worth introducing possible >>> regressions, which will only delay the 9.2-RELEASE. >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> OK, then we need a release notes telling people a sane value for >> nmbclusters and friends so that they know how to make 10gigE work. >> >> I'll poll my team for a value if someone else has one, that would be even >> better. >> >> -- >> Alfred Perlstein >> VP Software Engineering, iXsystems > > >Is there a possibility that a separate unofficial patch set could be >released for people who want the autotuning but do not want to run 9 >stable after 9.2 is released. >I would like the autotuning, but i am a little reluctent to use other >stable stuff i will get when tracking stable. > >Regards >Johan Hi, I think that's a good point. In our company, itīs not allowed to use the stable tree for any production system. Little and useful patches are still allowed. Having a central point with a description of each patch it would be much easier to update the release version with the needed patches. Perhaps, each patch could also have a comment section and a state (experimental, almost stable, stable ...) or a counter for successfully and unsuccessfully deployments. Any objections? Regards, Pascal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?trinity-0aface3a-147f-4fc1-ab62-a2c25cedce96-1374003773426>