> >> I believe it's time to up these values to something that's in line with > >> higher speed > >> local networks, such as 10G. Perhaps it's time to move these to 2MB > >> instead of 256K. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > This never happened, did it? Was there a reason? > > > > I went back and looked at the mail thread. I didn't see any strong objections > so I think you should commit this for 9.x. > > np@ did point out that nmbclusters also lags on modern hardware so consider > upping > that at the same time.
I thought Bruce's observation, in: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-March/011193.html that: "...there is an mostly-unrelated bufferbloat problem that is purely local. If you have a buffer that is larger than an Ln cache (or about half than), then actually using just a single buffer of that size guarantees thrashing of the Ln cache, so that almost every memory access is an Ln cache miss. Even with current hardware, a buffer of size 256K will thrash most L1 caches and a buffer of size a few MB will thrash most L2 caches." , and his suggestion for some sort of auto-tuning, deserve consideration. Are you going to address this problem (at least the L2 and higher cache thrashing), or give some suggestions for tuning in UPDATING and the relevant manpages? b. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
