Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:48:40 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@ixsystems.com> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, re@freebsd.org Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 Message-ID: <51E3EFA8.1050606@ixsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <51E3EEAA.3040106@freebsd.org> References: <51D90B9B.9080209@ixsystems.com> <51D92826.1070707@freebsd.org> <51E1061F.3050804@ixsystems.com> <51E398F3.40008@freebsd.org> <51E3EEAA.3040106@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/15/13 5:44 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 15.07.2013 08:38, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> On 13.07.2013 09:47, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>> Andre, we have a number of people running this patch in the >>> following configurations: >>> >>> 6-8GB ram + 10gigE ethernet using iozone over NFS. >> >> As you haven't seen any problems yet I've asked RE to green light >> the MFC. > > RE has rejected the MFC out of fears for unexpected regressions. > That is unfortunate. I guess re@ doesn't understand that FreeBSD 9.2 will be unusable out of the box for doing 10gigE for more than a few microseconds. Can we not just do my original patch that has the check for 64bit pointers before unscaling maxusers? That would be dirt simple and just work with minimal risk. -- Alfred Perlstein VP Software Engineering, iXsystems
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51E3EFA8.1050606>