Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:25:47 -0700 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS performance on 7.2-release/amd64 low compared to UFS2 + SoftUpdates Message-ID: <b269bc570906180825p1944ed04p77338dd9f7ec3b7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <E1MHCzU-000HX6-B9@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> References: <cf9b1ee00906171707r885b33csd4ec9026202bc63@mail.gmail.com> <E1MHCzU-000HX6-B9@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>wrote: > > All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD > > ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve > > stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it > > safe to give to ZFS? > > If you are on amd64 then don't tune it, it will tune itself. If you > are on i386 (or an earlier verions of amd64) then 128M on a 2 gig machine > should be OK, assuming you have kmem_size_max set to the full 1500 odd. > Those are numbers which come up time and time again - I ran reliably with > them for ages, until the latest -STABLE. > My "rule of thumb" for 32-bit i386 systems has been to: - assign half of RAM to kmem (up to the max of ~1500 on 7.0/7.1) - assign half of kmem to zfs_arc_max So far, for my workloads (nfs/cifs file servers, cups print servers, rsync servers, kde4 desktop), it's worked well. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b269bc570906180825p1944ed04p77338dd9f7ec3b7>