Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:09:40 -0400 From: Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@ixsystems.com> Cc: "re@freebsd.org" <re@freebsd.org>, "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, "nonesuch@longcount.org" <nonesuch@longcount.org> Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 Message-ID: <CAKYr3zxFe8MPkZusxPsZLDcraGNFC1TSaXvXRVw=1XY69_5Ojg@mail.gmail.com> 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
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@ixsystems.com>wrote: > 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. > > is there a patch set i can backport on my own, do we know what revision(s) are required? Ive got boxes with 128GB and 10Gbe Intel....... so im willing to do some work...... > 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" >> > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKYr3zxFe8MPkZusxPsZLDcraGNFC1TSaXvXRVw=1XY69_5Ojg>