On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:34:18 -0700 Artem Belevich
wrote:
> Perhaps reduced UMA fragmentation helps those subsystem that do use
> UMA (including ZFS which always uses uma for various housekeeping
> data).
PJD told me once that ZFS is always using UMA, it is just not using it
for everything (excep
On 08/28/2010 05:26, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 05:03:42AM -0400, jhell wrote:
>> On 08/28/2010 04:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
#ifdef _KERNEL
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 05:03:42AM -0400, jhell wrote:
> On 08/28/2010 04:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
> >> The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
> >>
> >> #ifdef _KERNEL
> >> if (arc_reclaim_needed()) {
> >>
On 08/28/2010 04:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
>> The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
>>
>> #ifdef _KERNEL
>> if (arc_reclaim_needed()) {
>> needfree = 0;
>> wakeup(&needfree);
>>
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
> The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
>
> #ifdef _KERNEL
> if (arc_reclaim_needed()) {
> needfree = 0;
> wakeup(&needfree);
> }
> #endif
>
> I still mov
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
> I must have missed the uma defrag patches but according to the code
> those patches should not have any effect on your implimentation of ZFS
> on your system because vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma defaults to off unless you
> have manually turned this on o
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM, jhell wrote:
> On 08/27/2010 19:50, Artem Belevich wrote:
>> Another "me too" here.
>>
>> 8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab +
>> abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches.
>>
>> The box survived few days of pounding o
On 08/27/2010 19:50, Artem Belevich wrote:
> Another "me too" here.
>
> 8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab +
> abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches.
>
> The box survived few days of pounding on it without any signs of trouble.
>
I must
Another "me too" here.
8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab +
abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches.
The box survived few days of pounding on it without any signs of trouble.
--Artem
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
Hi mm.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:05:00 -0400
Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> > Thank you, I have updated the v15 patch for 8-STABLE.
> I have been running your patch for a couple days now and no issues.
> Nice work!
Yes, me too. I'll try t
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Thank you, I have updated the v15 patch for 8-STABLE.
I have been running your patch for a couple days now and no issues.
Nice work!
Scott
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
Thank you, I have updated the v15 patch for 8-STABLE.
Dňa 22. 8. 2010 17:44, Olivier Smedts wrote / napísal(a):
> 2010/8/22 Martin Matuska :
>> Dear FreeBSD community,
>>
>> many of our [2] (and Solaris [3]) users today are complaining about slow
>> ZFS writes. One of the causes for these writes
2010/8/22 Martin Matuska :
> Dear FreeBSD community,
>
> many of our [2] (and Solaris [3]) users today are complaining about slow
> ZFS writes. One of the causes for these writes is the selection of the
> proper allocation method for allocation of new blocks [3] [4]. Another
> issue a write slowdow
Dear FreeBSD community,
many of our [2] (and Solaris [3]) users today are complaining about slow
ZFS writes. One of the causes for these writes is the selection of the
proper allocation method for allocation of new blocks [3] [4]. Another
issue a write slowdown during TXG sync times.
Solaris 10 (
14 matches
Mail list logo
