Presentation describing the logic behind adding dynamic memory allocation to
UFS dirhash
can be found at:
"EuroBSDCon 2008 - Nick Barkas - Dynamic memory allocation for dirhash in
UFS2"
http://www.za.freebsd.org/multimedia/tag-nick_barkas.html
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1
Observation relevant to tuning vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem:
When swap is in use
dirhash_mem hovers between 10% and 20% of dirhash_maxmem
due to frequent scavenging.
This indicates active dirhash_mem effectively behaves differently during low
memory,
and that the dirhash_reclaimage setting is effective
After scouring the internet,
it seems that no one else has done a great deal of testing of UFS2 dirhash
defaults lately.
As the dirhash feature has effectively been tested for regressions,
I would like to propose setting the default dirhash values to my original
recommendation:
vfs.ufs.dirhash_m
Here is a more recent dialog between the developers.
http://markmail.org/message/3sufphda2exjmhnq#query:+page:1+mid:3sufphda2exjmhnq+state:results
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:36:49PM +0200, Nick Barkas wrote:
Some time during the next week or so, I plan on committing the attached
patch. It adds a
I have seen significant benefits from setting the UFS dirhash cache tuneables
to effective values,
and I believe all FreeBSD users will see at least a small benefit as well.
The ball for establishing production defaults appears to have been dropped
in 2008.
I am suggesting we pick it up and finish
On 29/08/2013 03:32, Dewayne Geraghty wrote:
> From the analysis perforned in 2009, and referenced earlier by Robert, this
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/DirhashDynamicMemory and other material at this site,
> indicates that the reclaimage interval is workload dependent and that 5 to 8
> seconds seem
Dewayne Geraghty-4 wrote
>> I'll bump vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage to 60, it's worth it.
>
> From the analysis perforned in 2009, and referenced earlier by Robert,
> this
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/DirhashDynamicMemory and other material at this
> site,
> indicates that the reclaimage interval is wo
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Voras
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013 7:49 PM
> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Suggest changing dirhash defaults for FreeBSD 9.2.
For previous benchmarks on the effect of the dirhash cache see:
https://wiki.freebsd.org/DirhashDynamicMemory
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Suggest-changing-dirhash-defaults-for-FreeBSD-9-2-tp5839351p5839775.html
Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing lis
Ivan Voras-7 wrote
> On 28/08/2013 05:58, Robert Burmeister wrote:
>>
>> On 8/27/2013 9:40 AM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>>> On 27 August 2013 16:41, Robert Burmeister
>>> <
> Robert.Burmeister@
> > wrote:
I believe that increasing the following values by 10 would benefit
most FreeBSD u
On Aug 28, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Robert_Burmeister
wrote:
> Torfinn Ingolfsen-5 wrote
>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:58:10 -0400
>> Robert Burmeister <
>
>> Robert.Burmeister@
>
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> As 64 bit platforms tend to have more RAM and use ZFS,
>> Do you have any numbers for the "64 bit pl
I believe that increasing the following values by 10 would benefit
most FreeBSD users without disadvantage.
vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem: 2097152 to 20971520
vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage: 5 to 50 or 60
>>> vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem is further autotuned based on available
>>> phy
Torfinn Ingolfsen-5 wrote
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:58:10 -0400
> Robert Burmeister <
> Robert.Burmeister@
> > wrote:
>>
>> As 64 bit platforms tend to have more RAM and use ZFS,
> Do you have any numbers for the "64 bit platforms tend to use ZFS"?
PCBSD and OSX both default to ZFS for their 64
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:58:10 -0400
Robert Burmeister wrote:
>
> As 64 bit platforms tend to have more RAM and use ZFS,
Do you have any numbers for the "64 bit platforms tend to use ZFS"?
If not, I will suggest that this is just a theory.
FWIW, I haven't abandoned UFS on 64-bit platforms yet (I
On 28/08/2013 05:58, Robert Burmeister wrote:
>
> On 8/27/2013 9:40 AM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>> On 27 August 2013 16:41, Robert Burmeister
>> wrote:
>>> I have been experimenting with dirhash settings, and have scoured the
>>> internet for other peoples' experience with it.
>>> (I found the p
On 8/27/2013 9:40 AM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 27 August 2013 16:41, Robert Burmeister
wrote:
I have been experimenting with dirhash settings, and have scoured the internet
for other peoples' experience with it.
(I found the performance improvement in compiling has forestalled the need to
On 8/27/2013 9:40 AM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 27 August 2013 16:41, Robert Burmeister
wrote:
I have been experimenting with dirhash settings, and have scoured the internet
for other peoples' experience with it.
(I found the performance improvement in compiling has forestalled the need to
On 27 August 2013 16:41, Robert Burmeister
wrote:
>
> I have been experimenting with dirhash settings, and have scoured the
> internet for other peoples' experience with it.
> (I found the performance improvement in compiling has forestalled the need to
> add an SSD drive. ;-)
>
> I believe that
I've also toyed with dirhash on a few servers and received favorable
results. I've no idea where the defaults currently come from, but I'm
guessing probably around 1999 ;-)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listi
19 matches
Mail list logo
