On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Gerrit Kühn wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen <[email protected]> > wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: > > WJW> > 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > WJW> > 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use > WJW> > (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of packet > WJW> > secondary zone in use (current/cache) > > WJW> Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. > WJW> > WJW> 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > WJW> 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > WJW> 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > WJW> (current/cache) > > After about 24h I now have > > 128320/2630/130950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 127294/1200/128494/512000 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 127294/834 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache)
Follow-up regarding my server statistics shown here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-February/055458.html I just pulled the statistics on the same servers for comparison (then vs. now). RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/09 -- primary HTTP, pri DNS, SSH server + ZFS 515/1930/2445 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 512/540/1052/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1152K/6394K/7547K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/11 -- secondary DNS, MySQL, dev box + ZFS 514/1151/1665 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 512/504/1016/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1152K/2203K/3356K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_7 i386 2008/04/19 -- secondary HTTP, SSH server, heavy memory I/O 515/820/1335 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 513/631/1144/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1154K/2615K/3769K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_8 amd64 2010/02/02 -- central backups + NFS+ZFS-based filer 1572/3423/4995 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 1539/3089/4628/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 3471K/7449K/10920K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) So, not much difference. I should point out that the NFS+ZFS-based filer doesn't actually do its backups using NFS; it uses rsnapshot (rsync) over SSH. There is intense network I/O during backup time though, depending on how much data there is to back up. The NFS mounts (on the clients) are only used to provide a way for people to get access to their nightly backups in a convenient way; it isn't used very heavily. I can do something NFS-intensive on any of the above clients if people want me to kind of testing. Possibly an rsync with a source of the NFS mount and a destination of the local disk would be a good test? Let me know if anyone's interested in me testing that. -- | Jeremy Chadwick [email protected] | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
