on 19/09/2010 11:42 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: >> I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still have >> high >> enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added UMA >> support >> to address this issue in zfs. If you have allocations which don't require >> per-cpu caching and are very large why even use UMA? > > Good point. > Right now I am running with 4 items/bucket limit for items larger than 32KB.
But I also have two counter-points actually :) 1. Uniformity. E.g. you can handle all ZFS I/O buffers via the same mechanism regardless of buffer size. 2. (Open)Solaris does that for a while and it seems to suit them well. Not saying that they are perfect, or the best, or an example to follow, but still that means quite a bit (for me). -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
