On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Pete French wrote:
> > All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD
> > ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve
> > stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it
> > safe to give to ZFS?
>
> If y
> All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD
> ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve
> stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it
> safe to give to ZFS?
If you are on amd64 then don't tune it, it will tune itself. If you
All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD
ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve
stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it
safe to give to ZFS?
- Dan Naumov
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Isn
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:34:02 +0200, Dan Naumov
wrote:
I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random--
In the last episode (Jun 17), Dan Naumov said:
> I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
> something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
>
> on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
>
> ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
> --Random--
>
The difference in layout can easily explain a 2x difference in
sequential transfer performance.
I seriously doubt your disk is really getting 23K seeks/s done in the
UFS case - 100/s sounds much more reasonable for real hardware. Perhaps
the results of caching?
Joe Koberg
Dan Naumov wro
I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- -
