Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
Barry Boes wrote: I could apply such a patch to my servers, but there are two disadvantages : o who wants to apply kernel patches to mission critical servers? Isn't that a linux thing (joke!) Unfortunately it's not. There's a whole raft of patches (with PR's filed) that are required when you're using certain configurations of FreeBSD. In particular my 6.3 production servers require: * A bunch of patches to ataraid to prevent panics, make the raid work during failures etc... Many can be found here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting * Patch to the 4BSD scheduler to prevent regular deadlocks on all quad core systems I have access to: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org/msg64390.html * Patch for fixing devfs to have proper behavior with symlinks in jails: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=114057 And there are one or two other patches on some deployed systems (eg: 'multi ip jail patches'). I used to be in the no-patches-on-my-production-servers camp, but I've found that it was unrealistic and resulted in less stable systems. Cheers, Stef Walter ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
Barry Boes wrote: With the advent of ZFS, Solaris users are devoting 30G or more to their ARC caches today. If FreeBSD 8 is going to up the KVM size, is there a reason to not increase the limit to something that will not be reached in the lifetime of 8? 100GB? I think Alan Cox recently increased the kmem limit in 8-current from 1.5 GB to 7 GB, and the default is 4.2 GB. http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revisionrevision=180311 I don't know if this will be MFCed. It will not be in 7.1-Release; it's too late for that. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
Barry Boes wrote: With the advent of ZFS, Solaris users are devoting 30G or more to their ARC caches today. If FreeBSD 8 is going to up the KVM size, is there a reason to not increase the limit to something that will not be reached in the lifetime of 8? 100GB? It's easily configurable on HEAD. From an email alc sent me: This: Index: amd64/include/pmap.h === --- amd64/include/pmap.h(revision 180373) +++ amd64/include/pmap.h(working copy) @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ /* Initial number of kernel page tables. */ #ifndef NKPT -#defineNKPT32 +#defineNKPT1023 #endif #define NKPML4E1 /* number of kernel PML4 slots */ Index: amd64/include/vmparam.h === --- amd64/include/vmparam.h (revision 180373) +++ amd64/include/vmparam.h (working copy) @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ */ #defineVM_MAX_KERNEL_ADDRESS KVADDR(KPML4I, NPDPEPG-1, NPDEPG-1, NPTEPG-1) -#defineVM_MIN_KERNEL_ADDRESS KVADDR(KPML4I, NPDPEPG-7, 0, 0) +#defineVM_MIN_KERNEL_ADDRESS KVADDR(KPML4I, 0, 0, 0) #defineDMAP_MIN_ADDRESSKVADDR(DMPML4I, 0, 0, 0) #defineDMAP_MAX_ADDRESSKVADDR(DMPML4I+1, 0, 0, 0) will now get you this: vm.kvm_free: 547729960960 vm.kvm_size: 549755809792 on HEAD. :-) Kris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote: will now get you this: vm.kvm_free: 547729960960 vm.kvm_size: 549755809792 on HEAD. :-) Holy fat cache Batman! Any chance it could be made a tunable? -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
Daniel O'Connor wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote: will now get you this: vm.kvm_free: 547729960960 vm.kvm_size: 549755809792 on HEAD. :-) Holy fat cache Batman! Any chance it could be made a tunable? I don't know what the impact might be of changing these constants to runtime variable accesses, if they are in a critical path somewhere. Kris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
Barry Boes wrote: I could apply such a patch to my servers, but there are two disadvantages : o who wants to apply kernel patches to mission critical servers? Isn't that a linux thing (joke!) A trivial tweak would let you set both parameters in your kernel configuration as an option. o what about apps like the linuxulator that might not stand for this? Why do you think they will care? On the tunable option : with today's kmem_size and kmem_size_max tunables, would there also be a need to tune the portion of address space available to kmem? Yes, it is still suballocated out of the kernel map. Kris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kvm on amd64 - 6G?
I could apply such a patch to my servers, but there are two disadvantages : o who wants to apply kernel patches to mission critical servers? Isn't that a linux thing (joke!) o what about apps like the linuxulator that might not stand for this? On the tunable option : with today's kmem_size and kmem_size_max tunables, would there also be a need to tune the portion of address space available to kmem? Thanks, Barry Kris Kennaway writes: Barry Boes wrote: With the advent of ZFS, Solaris users are devoting 30G or more to their ARC caches today. If FreeBSD 8 is going to up the KVM size, is there a reason to not increase the limit to something that will not be reached in the lifetime of 8? 100GB? It's easily configurable on HEAD. From an email alc sent me: This: Index: amd64/include/pmap.h === --- amd64/include/pmap.h(revision 180373) +++ amd64/include/pmap.h(working copy) @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ /* Initial number of kernel page tables. */ #ifndef NKPT -#defineNKPT32 +#defineNKPT1023 #endif #define NKPML4E1 /* number of kernel PML4 slots */ Index: amd64/include/vmparam.h === --- amd64/include/vmparam.h (revision 180373) +++ amd64/include/vmparam.h (working copy) @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ */ #defineVM_MAX_KERNEL_ADDRESS KVADDR(KPML4I, NPDPEPG-1, NPDEPG-1, NPTEPG-1) -#defineVM_MIN_KERNEL_ADDRESS KVADDR(KPML4I, NPDPEPG-7, 0, 0) +#defineVM_MIN_KERNEL_ADDRESS KVADDR(KPML4I, 0, 0, 0) #defineDMAP_MIN_ADDRESSKVADDR(DMPML4I, 0, 0, 0) #defineDMAP_MAX_ADDRESSKVADDR(DMPML4I+1, 0, 0, 0) will now get you this: vm.kvm_free: 547729960960 vm.kvm_size: 549755809792 on HEAD. :-) Kris ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
