On 10/17/13 1:03 AM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Steven Hartland > How about the case where the admin has specifically sized a smaller > zfs_arc_max to keep ZFS / ARC memory requirements down as they want > the memory for other uses, and there is no L2ARC. > > In this case sizing the hash based of the machine physmem could counter > act this and hence cause a problem, could it not? > > I know its extreme but for example a machine with 256GB of ram but > zfs_arc_max set to 1GB you'd be allocating 256MB of that as the hash > size, which is surely a massive waste as you wouldn't need 256MB of > hash for just 1GB of ARC buffers? > > Am I still barking up the wrong tree? > > > They can dynamically change arc_c_max after we've booted, which could > leave the hash table much too small, if it was sized based on what > zfs_arc_max was when we booted. > > I'd say keep it simple until we see a problem.
+1. -- Saso _______________________________________________ developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
