Re: parformance patch?

2007-08-04 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:40:14AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >>loaded servers for over a year with FreeBSD 6.2 > > > >Lucky you ;) Doesn't mean that parts of the kernel you're not using > >can handle it. > > well - it exactly mean that it can :) I know for a fact that MAXPHYS cannot safely

Re: parformance patch?

2007-08-04 Thread Wojciech Puchar
loaded servers for over a year with FreeBSD 6.2 Lucky you ;) Doesn't mean that parts of the kernel you're not using can handle it. well - it exactly mean that it can :) better. patched vm_fault make pageins faster, but not pageout. disks often does write caching clustering pageouts anyway,

Re: parformance patch?

2007-08-03 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 10:04:18PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >>-#define MAXPHYS(128 * 1024)/* max raw I/O transfer > >>size */ > >>+#define MAXPHYS(512 * 1024)/* max raw I/O transfer > >>size */ > >>both works for me and gives noticable speedup, when op

Re: parformance patch?

2007-08-03 Thread Wojciech Puchar
-#define MAXPHYS(128 * 1024)/* max raw I/O transfer size */ +#define MAXPHYS(512 * 1024)/* max raw I/O transfer size */ both works for me and gives noticable speedup, when operating on big files and when starting big apps or swapping. There are assumptions

Re: parformance patch?

2007-08-03 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 05:26:49PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > is anything wrong in this? > > --- vm_fault.c.orig Fri Aug 3 15:01:27 2007 > +++ vm_fault.c Thu Aug 2 15:56:17 2007 > @@ -113,8 +113,8 @@ > static int vm_fault_additional_pages(vm_page_t, int, int, vm_page_t *, int > *);