Re: sysctl -zarc for ZFS users
2014-12-08 5:34 GMT+01:00 Yoshihiro Ota o...@j.email.ne.jp: Thank you for your report, Maurizio. I missed 'svn add zarc.c' and resuled an incompelte patch. I uploaded a new one with a complete set to the bugzilla. Please try against clean directory, i.e. svn revert -R usr.bin/systat. Thanks, Hiro On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:28:05 +0100 Ranjan1018 . 21474...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-12-06 11:35 GMT+01:00 Yoshihiro Ota o...@j.email.ne.jp: Hi all. I've been watching ZFS activites on my machine and improved systat to monitor such. One of my first goals is to watch ZFS cache statistics. I posted my patch to the bugzilla @ https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195460 I've been using on 11-CURRENT and 10.1-RELEASE myself. Regards, Hiro % systat -zarc Total MFU MRUAnon Hdr L2Hdr Other ZFS ARC206M 63M136M826K 1102K 0K 5251K ratehits misses total hits total misses arcstats : 75%1183 38823721 4202 arcstats.demand_data : 0% 0 0 528 0 arcstats.demand_metadata : 76%1007 30821441 2757 arcstats.prefetch_data: 0% 0 00 0 arcstats.prefetch_metadata: 68% 176 80 1752 1445 zfetchstats : 44% 954120426410 25482 arcstats.l2 : 0% 0 00 0 vdev_cache_stats : 0% 0 00 0 Hi Hiro, just applied the patch, but I receive the error: # make make: don't know how to make zarc.c. Stop make: stopped in /usr/src/usr.bin/systat The file zarc,c is missing. Where can I find it ? Thanks. Maurizio ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org This patch is running on a 9.3-STABLE server for about a week with no problems. Only two cosmetics issues - big numbers are difficult to read eg. zfetchstats : 99% 646 4272407322143761103 is more readable, for me, as zfetchstats : 99% 646 4272.41M143.76M - a total rate percent is missing. Thank you for your work Hiro. -- Maurizio. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
simple task to speed up booting
The rotating swirlie ('-/|\') in the loader accounts for a surprisingly
large part of our boot time on systems with slow-ish serial consoles.
I think right now it takes a step for each 512 byte read, reducing that
to once every 64kB or even 1MB would be an improvement with the kind of
kernel sizes we have today.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: simple task to speed up booting
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk
wrote:
The rotating swirlie ('-/|\') in the loader accounts for a surprisingly
large part of our boot time on systems with slow-ish serial consoles.
I think right now it takes a step for each 512 byte read, reducing that
to once every 64kB or even 1MB would be an improvement with the kind of
kernel sizes we have today.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
My wish would be to see listing explicit steps because when a lock occurs
it would be possible to report last completed ( or started ) step .
Otherwise , actually seeing a swirling set of characters is itself not much
useful other than showing there is a progress without understanding what is
going on .
If I were able to change anything in FreeBSD , my first choice would be to
change these swirling characters to list explicit names of completed tasks
( or starting tasks which operating system developers would know best
which one is more useful ) .
Thank you very much .
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: simple task to speed up booting
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 10:32 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The rotating swirlie ('-/|\') in the loader accounts for a surprisingly
large part of our boot time on systems with slow-ish serial consoles.
I think right now it takes a step for each 512 byte read, reducing that
to once every 64kB or even 1MB would be an improvement with the kind of
kernel sizes we have today.
I experimented with that a while ago using the attached patch and was
disappointed with the results. As I vaguely remember it, a divisor of 8
looked fine, but had no significant speedup. With a divisor of 32 the
difference was measureable (only like 1.5 seconds or so faster), but it
gave the impression that something was wrong, and the overall perception
was that it was slower rather than faster, despite what a stopwatch
said.
I was testing at 115kbps, maybe at 9600 it would be significant. I
don't understand why anything these days is still defaulting to 9600.
It's the 21st century, but we never got the George Jetson flying cars we
were promised, and apparently we're never going to break loose from the
standards set by accoustic-coupled modems.
-- Ian
Index: lib/libstand/twiddle.c
===
--- lib/libstand/twiddle.c (revision 274850)
+++ lib/libstand/twiddle.c (working copy)
@@ -46,7 +46,11 @@ void
twiddle()
{
static int pos;
+ static int divisor;
- putchar(|/-\\[pos++ 3]);
- putchar('\b');
+ if (divisor-- == 0) {
+ divisor = 32;
+ putchar(|/-\\[pos++ 3]);
+ putchar('\b');
+ }
}
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: simple task to speed up booting
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 10:32 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The rotating swirlie ('-/|\') in the loader accounts for a surprisingly
large part of our boot time on systems with slow-ish serial consoles.
I think right now it takes a step for each 512 byte read, reducing that
to once every 64kB or even 1MB would be an improvement with the kind of
kernel sizes we have today.
I experimented with that a while ago using the attached patch and was
disappointed with the results. As I vaguely remember it, a divisor of 8
looked fine, but had no significant speedup. With a divisor of 32 the
difference was measureable (only like 1.5 seconds or so faster), but it
gave the impression that something was wrong, and the overall perception
was that it was slower rather than faster, despite what a stopwatch
said.
I was testing at 115kbps, maybe at 9600 it would be significant. I
don't understand why anything these days is still defaulting to 9600.
It's the 21st century, but we never got the George Jetson flying cars we
were promised, and apparently we're never going to break loose from the
standards set by accoustic-coupled modems.
AFAIK, accoustic-coupled modems topped out at 300 baud; that's the fastest
one I've used, anyway.
Defaults are hard to change, though.
Mike
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: simple task to speed up booting
On Dec 14, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 10:32 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The rotating swirlie ('-/|\') in the loader accounts for a surprisingly
large part of our boot time on systems with slow-ish serial consoles.
I think right now it takes a step for each 512 byte read, reducing that
to once every 64kB or even 1MB would be an improvement with the kind of
kernel sizes we have today.
I experimented with that a while ago using the attached patch and was
disappointed with the results. As I vaguely remember it, a divisor of 8
looked fine, but had no significant speedup. With a divisor of 32 the
difference was measureable (only like 1.5 seconds or so faster), but it
gave the impression that something was wrong, and the overall perception
was that it was slower rather than faster, despite what a stopwatch
said.
I was testing at 115kbps, maybe at 9600 it would be significant. I
don't understand why anything these days is still defaulting to 9600.
It's the 21st century, but we never got the George Jetson flying cars we
were promised, and apparently we're never going to break loose from the
standards set by accoustic-coupled modems.
-- Ian
Index: lib/libstand/twiddle.c
===
--- lib/libstand/twiddle.c(revision 274850)
+++ lib/libstand/twiddle.c(working copy)
@@ -46,7 +46,11 @@ void
twiddle()
{
static int pos;
+ static int divisor;
- putchar(|/-\\[pos++ 3]);
- putchar('\b');
+ if (divisor-- == 0) {
+ divisor = 32;
+ putchar(|/-\\[pos++ 3]);
+ putchar('\b');
+ }
}
Ian, can divisor be exposed so that it can be set based on the loader's
output device?
That was we can preserve it for video consoles, but other things such as serial
at = 9600 could throttle it (or even shut it off… twiddle_divisor =
TWIDDLE_SHUT_OFF).
-Alfred
-Alfred
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: simple task to speed up booting
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 07:52:11AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Sun, 2014-12-14 at 10:32 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The rotating swirlie ('-/|\') in the loader accounts for a surprisingly
large part of our boot time on systems with slow-ish serial consoles.
I think right now it takes a step for each 512 byte read, reducing that
to once every 64kB or even 1MB would be an improvement with the kind of
kernel sizes we have today.
I experimented with that a while ago using the attached patch and was
disappointed with the results. As I vaguely remember it, a divisor of 8
looked fine, but had no significant speedup. With a divisor of 32 the
difference was measureable (only like 1.5 seconds or so faster), but it
gave the impression that something was wrong, and the overall perception
was that it was slower rather than faster, despite what a stopwatch
said.
I was testing at 115kbps, maybe at 9600 it would be significant. I
don't understand why anything these days is still defaulting to 9600.
It's the 21st century, but we never got the George Jetson flying cars we
were promised, and apparently we're never going to break loose from the
standards set by accoustic-coupled modems.
You not always working with self-owned servers.
Default is 9600,8n1
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: simple task to speed up booting
In message 1418568731.935.8.ca...@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore writes: It's the 21st century, but we never got the George Jetson flying cars we were promised, and apparently we're never going to break loose from the standards set by accoustic-coupled modems. 9600 is not from accoustic-coupled modems, but from RS-232 runs on unshielded telephone wire in office environments. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
