From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 3 12:30:19 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53FE1065670 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 12:30:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from O.Seibert@cs.ru.nl) Received: from kookpunt.science.ru.nl (kookpunt.science.ru.nl [131.174.30.61]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE658FC1F for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 12:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from twoquid.cs.ru.nl (twoquid.cs.ru.nl [131.174.142.38]) by kookpunt.science.ru.nl (8.13.7/5.31) with ESMTP id p43CUE37025288; Tue, 3 May 2011 14:30:14 +0200 (MEST) Received: by twoquid.cs.ru.nl (Postfix, from userid 4100) id 4AF9E2E05D; Tue, 3 May 2011 14:30:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:30:15 +0200 From: Olaf Seibert To: Jeremy Chadwick Message-ID: <20110503123015.GZ6733@twoquid.cs.ru.nl> References: <20110502143230.GW6733@twoquid.cs.ru.nl> <20110503092113.GA39704@icarus.home.lan> <20110503100854.GY6733@twoquid.cs.ru.nl> <20110503122052.GA13811@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110503122052.GA13811@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-Spam-Score: -1.799 () ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 131.174.30.61 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Olaf Seibert Subject: Re: Automatic reboot doesn't reboot X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:30:19 -0000 On Tue 03 May 2011 at 05:20:52 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > To be on the safe side, pick something that's small at first, then work > your way up. You'll need probably 1+ weeks of heavy ZFS I/O between > tests (e.g. don't change the tunable, reboot, then 4 hours later declare > the new (larger) value as stable). Ah, that's important: so far it seemed to me that a *too small* value (for all various tunables) would cause problems, but now you're saying that *too large* is the problem (at least for vfs.zfs.arc_max)! This machine has mixed loads; from time to time somebody starts a big job with lots of I/O, and in between it is much more modestly loaded. > So for example on an 8GB RAM machine, I might recommend starting with > vfs.zfs.arc_max="4096M" and let that run for a while. If you find your > "Wired" value in top(1) remains fairly constant after a week or so of > heavy I/O, consider bumping up the value a bit more (say 4608M). I'll do just that. > Sorry to make this long-winded; bad habit of mine that I've never > managed to break. Oh no problem, it turns out to be eye-opening! > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | -Olaf. -- Pipe rene = new PipePicture(); assert(Not rene.GetType().Equals(Pipe));