On 08/28/2010 05:26, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 05:03:42AM -0400, jhell wrote:
On 08/28/2010 04:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
#ifdef _KERNEL
if
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:34:18 -0700 Artem Belevich fbsdl...@src.cx
wrote:
Perhaps reduced UMA fragmentation helps those subsystem that do use
UMA (including ZFS which always uses uma for various housekeeping
data).
PJD told me once that ZFS is always using UMA, it is just not using it
for
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
I must have missed the uma defrag patches but according to the code
those patches should not have any effect on your implimentation of ZFS
on your system because vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma defaults to off unless you
have manually turned this on or
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
#ifdef _KERNEL
if (arc_reclaim_needed()) {
needfree = 0;
wakeup(needfree);
}
#endif
I still moved that
On 08/28/2010 04:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
#ifdef _KERNEL
if (arc_reclaim_needed()) {
needfree = 0;
wakeup(needfree);
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 05:03:42AM -0400, jhell wrote:
On 08/28/2010 04:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 28/08/2010 04:24 jhell said the following:
The modified patch from avg@ (portion patch) is:
#ifdef _KERNEL
if (arc_reclaim_needed()) {
needfree =
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org wrote:
Thank you, I have updated the v15 patch for 8-STABLE.
I have been running your patch for a couple days now and no issues.
Nice work!
Scott
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Hi mm.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:05:00 -0400
Scott Ullrich sullr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org wrote:
Thank you, I have updated the v15 patch for 8-STABLE.
I have been running your patch for a couple days now and no issues.
Nice work!
Another me too here.
8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab +
abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches.
The box survived few days of pounding on it without any signs of trouble.
--Artem
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Norikatsu Shigemura
On 08/27/2010 19:50, Artem Belevich wrote:
Another me too here.
8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab +
abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches.
The box survived few days of pounding on it without any signs of trouble.
I must have
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM, jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
On 08/27/2010 19:50, Artem Belevich wrote:
Another me too here.
8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab +
abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches.
The box survived few days of pounding
Dear FreeBSD community,
many of our [2] (and Solaris [3]) users today are complaining about slow
ZFS writes. One of the causes for these writes is the selection of the
proper allocation method for allocation of new blocks [3] [4]. Another
issue a write slowdown during TXG sync times.
Solaris 10
2010/8/22 Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org:
Dear FreeBSD community,
many of our [2] (and Solaris [3]) users today are complaining about slow
ZFS writes. One of the causes for these writes is the selection of the
proper allocation method for allocation of new blocks [3] [4]. Another
issue a
Thank you, I have updated the v15 patch for 8-STABLE.
Dňa 22. 8. 2010 17:44, Olivier Smedts wrote / napísal(a):
2010/8/22 Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org:
Dear FreeBSD community,
many of our [2] (and Solaris [3]) users today are complaining about slow
ZFS writes. One of the causes for these
14 matches
Mail list logo
