Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:49:14 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? Message-ID: <4C84C72A.3020506@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><AANLkTi=6bta-Obrh2ejLCHENEbhV5stbMsvfek3Ki4ba@mail.gmail.com><4C825D65.3040004@DataIX.net> <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 05/09/2010 16:19 Steven Hartland said the following: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jhell" <jhell@DataIX.net> >>> >>> Attached is the needfree patch mentioned in the URL alongside a local >>> system patch to adjust kern.maxusers to no more than 512 on systems that >>> can support it... > > No joy, still drops down to arc_min even with those two patches and changing > to vm_paging_needed from the post Artem mentioned: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2010-August/032731.html > > So I suspect if I hadn't put in a high arc_min as well it would be back down > at silly low levels. But we don't really know this, do we? I think that it would be useful for you and perhaps for us, if you'd set up monitoring (and graphing) of key memory-related parameters. E.g. at least the following sysctls: kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.size vm.stats.vm.v_pdwakeups vm.stats.vm.v_cache_count vm.stats.vm.v_inactive_count vm.stats.vm.v_active_count vm.stats.vm.v_wire_count vm.stats.vm.v_free_count This would allow to see dynamics of memory consumption and correlation with pagedaemon events. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C84C72A.3020506>