From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 19 16:17:10 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 A1F6B9BB for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:17:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E90D2870 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 74955 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2013 17:00:35 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Aug 2013 17:00:35 -0000 Message-ID: <52124502.3050405@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:17:06 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Outback Dingo Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "stable@freebsd.org" , "nonesuch@longcount.org" , Alfred Perlstein 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 16:17:10 -0000 On 19.08.2013 18:09, Outback Dingo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Alfred Perlstein > 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...... I have committed it to 9-stable this morning with r254515. No backporting necessary. -- Andre > 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 >> " >> >> >