Kris Kennaway wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 21/11/2007, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Ivan Voras wrote: >> >>>> Yes, but I had to verify it anyway :) >>> You haven't verified anything until you look at how much work the system >>> is doing, before and after. >> >> I have, and it's roughly the same (50 +/- 2 queries/s). >> >> (meaning that I'm not interested in exact statistics here, but in >> order-of-magnitude changes, which didn't happen). > > OK, let's take a step back here. Did you obtain the lock profiling > trace and verify that you're seeing the same problem as Alexey? Can I > see the trace?
Here it is: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/stuff/lock_profile.txt This is without your patch. There's a lot of ZFS locks in there, but it seems lockmgr:ufs and lockmgr:zfs have the largest records: 299117621 1474776121 148663 1042821 1414 0 513 440 /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c:2035 (lockmgr:ufs) 117958368 847566147 182093 2676 316728 68 948 374 /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:515 (lockmgr:zfs) Which is surprising since all the working-set file systems are on ZFS, only the root and /tmp are on UFS. /tmp also holds sockets for the databases. Your reading of the lock profile will be appreciated. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
