Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:49:04 +0300
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
To:        Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache?
Message-ID:  <4C987F90.6000006@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <1E0B9C1145784776A773B99FC1139CD5@multiplay.co.uk>
References:  <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><AANLkTikNhsj5myhQCoPaNytUbpHtox1vg9AZm1N-OcMO@mail.gmail.com><4C85E91E.1010602@icyb.net.ua><4C873914.40404@freebsd.org><20100908084855.GF2465@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua><4C874F00.3050605@freebsd.org><A6D7E134B24F42E395C30A375A6B50AF@multiplay.co.uk><4C8D087B.5040404@freebsd.org><03537796FAB54E02959E2D64FC83004F@multiplay.co.uk><4C8D280F.3040803@freebsd.org><3FBF66BF11AA4CBBA6124CA435A4A31B@multiplay.co.uk><4C8E4212.30000@freebsd.org> <B98EBECBD399417CA5390C20627384B1@multiplay.co.uk> <D79F15FEB5794315BD8668E40B414BF0@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90B4C8.90203@freebsd.org> <6DFACB27CA8A4A22898BC81E55C4FD36@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90D3A1.7030008@freebsd.org> <0B1A90A08DFE4ADA9540F9F3846FDF38@multiplay.co.uk> <4C90EDB8.3040709@freebsd.org> <3F29E8CED7B24805B2D93F62A4EC9559@multiplay.co.uk> <4C9126FB.2020707@freebsd.org> <1E0B9C1145784776A773B99FC1139CD5@multiplay.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 21/09/2010 12:27 Steven Hartland said the following:
> forces into Inact and ARC never seems to push back to balance this out :(

Just a general note here.
ARC is not designed to "push back".  It's designed to give up memory under
pressure, it's designed to expand into free space, it's not designed to create
the pressure.
Incorrect language produces incorrect perception resulting in incorrect
expectations.

-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C987F90.6000006>