Hello Jason, Thursday, January 11, 2007, 12:36:46 AM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Robert, JJWW> Thank you! Holy mackerel! That's a lot of memory. With that type of a JJWW> calculation my 4GB arc_max setting is still in the danger zone on a JJWW> Thumper. I wonder if any of the ZFS developers could shed some light JJWW> on the calculation? JJWW> That kind of memory loss makes ZFS almost unusable for a database system. If you leave ncsize with default value then I belive it won't consume that much memory. JJWW> I agree that a page cache similar to UFS would be much better. Linux JJWW> works similarly to free pages, and it has been effective enough in the JJWW> past. Though I'm equally unhappy about Linux's tendency to grab every JJWW> bit of free RAM available for filesystem caching, and then cause JJWW> massive memory thrashing as it frees it for applications. Page cache won't be better - just better memory control for ZFS caches is strongly desired. Unfortunately from time to time ZFS makes servers to page enormously :( -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
