Re: zfs + uma

2010-09-19 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 19/09/2010 01:16 Jeff Roberson said the following: > Not specifically in reaction to Robert's comment but I would like to add my > thoughts to this notion of resource balancing in buckets. I really prefer not > to do any specific per-zone tuning except in extreme cases. This is because > quite

Re: [PATCH] Add -lssp_nonshared to GCC's LIB_SPEC unconditionally

2010-09-19 Thread Jeremie Le Hen
Hi Alexander, On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:14:46PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 11:46:51AM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > > > > I have no objection, but think we should cave in and investigate the > > possibility of using linker script wrapping libc.so in FreeBSD-9.0: > >

Re: zfs + uma

2010-09-19 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: > I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still have high > enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added UMA > support > to address this issue in zfs. If you have allocations which don't require >

Re: zfs + uma

2010-09-19 Thread Jeff Roberson
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 19/09/2010 01:16 Jeff Roberson said the following: Not specifically in reaction to Robert's comment but I would like to add my thoughts to this notion of resource balancing in buckets. I really prefer not to do any specific per-zone tuning except in

Re: zfs + uma

2010-09-19 Thread Robert N. M. Watson
On 19 Sep 2010, at 09:21, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I believe the combination of these approaches would significantly solve the >> problem and should be relatively little new code. It should also preserve >> the >> adaptable nature of the system without penalizing resource heavy systems. I >> wou

Re: zfs + uma

2010-09-19 Thread Robert N. M. Watson
On 19 Sep 2010, at 09:42, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: >> I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still have >> high >> enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added UMA >> support >> to address this iss

Re: ar(1) format_decimal failure is fatal?

2010-09-19 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:01:04AM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > GNU binutils has recently (well, March 2009) added a -D > ("deterministic") argument to ar(1) which sets the timestamp, uid, > and gid to zero, and the mode to 644. That argument was added based on discussions on NetBSD about doing

Re: [PATCH] Add -lssp_nonshared to GCC's LIB_SPEC unconditionally

2010-09-19 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:14:46PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 11:46:51AM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > > > > > > I have no objection, but think we should cave in and investigate the