On Monday, October 07, 2013 1:34:24 pm Davide Italiano wrote:
What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use
an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That
is,
suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call
(and
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:01:25 -0700
Davide Italiano wrote:
This could be probably changed -- from what | see even under high
memory pressure this wasn't a problem but all in all I agree with you
that we shouldn't loop forever but limit the number of pass on the
list to a somewhat constant
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 07:34:24PM +0200, Davide Italiano wrote:
What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use
an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That is,
suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call
Hi,
Please try it out on a -10 VM with something RAM limited - say, 128mb w/
GENERIC. See how it behaves.
I've successfully done buildworlds on 10-i386 with 128mb RAM. Let's try not
to break that before releng/10 is cut.
thanks,
-adrian
On 7 October 2013 23:34, Peter Holm pe...@holm.cc
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
Hi Adrian,
Please try it out on a -10 VM with something RAM limited - say, 128mb w/
GENERIC. See how it behaves.
I've successfully done buildworlds on 10-i386 with 128mb RAM. Let's try not
to break that before
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Davide Italiano dav...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
Hi Adrian,
Please try it out on a -10 VM with something RAM limited - say, 128mb w/
GENERIC. See how it behaves.
I've successfully done
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:32:58 +0200
Davide Italiano wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org
wrote:
Hi,
Hi Adrian,
Please try it out on a -10 VM with something RAM limited - say,
128mb w/ GENERIC. See how it behaves.
Be aware that any test that doesn't
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:32:58 +0200
Davide Italiano wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org
wrote:
Hi,
Hi Adrian,
Please try it out on a -10 VM with something RAM limited - say,
128mb
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
Prodded by davide@, I'd like to collect opinions about raising the
vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage sysctl from 5 to 60, committed at:
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254986
What it does:
Used in lowmem handler
What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use
an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That is,
suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call
(and make the '10%' the tunable value). Then you will always make some
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:40:15 pm Ivan Voras wrote:
On 28 August 2013 18:12, Gary Jennejohn gljennj...@googlemail.com wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, a normal desktop user won't
notice any real change, except that buildworld might get faster,
and big servers will
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:56:30 +0200
Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
[jump to the chase]
Why not leave it for sysadmins to tune it themselves if they want it:
1) They usually don't know about it until it's too late.
2) Dirhash is typically miniscule compared to todays memory sizes - a
On 28 August 2013 18:12, Gary Jennejohn gljennj...@googlemail.com wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, a normal desktop user won't
notice any real change, except that buildworld might get faster,
and big servers will benefit?
Basically, yes, but read on...
But could this negatively
13 matches
Mail list logo
