Your config makes me think this is an atypical ZFS configuration. As a
result, I'm not as concerned. But I think the multithread/concurrency
may be the biggest concern here. Perhaps the compilers are doing
something different that causes significant cache issues. (Perhaps the
compilers themselves are in need of an update?)
- Garrett
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 14:10 -0700, Marcelo H Majczak wrote:
> If I can help narrow the variables, I compiled both 137 and 144 (137 is
> minimum req. to build 144) using the same recommended compiler and lint,
> nightly options etc. 137 works fine but 144 suffer the slowness reported.
> System wise, I'm using only the 32bit non-debug version in an "old"
> single-core/thread pentium-m laptop.
>
> What I notice is that the zpool_$pool daemon had a lot more threads (total
> 136, iirc), so something changed there but not necessarily related to the
> problem. It also seems to be issuing a lot more writing to rpool, though I
> can't tell what. In my case it causes a lot of read contention since my rpool
> is a USB flash device with no cache. iostat says something like up to 10w/20r
> per second. Up to 137 the performance has been enough, so far, for my
> purposes on this laptop.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
