On 11/18/12 6:13 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 18.11.2012 15:05, Andrey Zonov wrote:
On 11/11/12 3:04 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is complicated but we need a
On 11/11/12 3:04 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It
really needs to be something like nmbclusters
On 18.11.2012 15:05, Andrey Zonov wrote:
On 11/11/12 3:04 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It
really
On 11/10/12 11:33 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:22:52PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
We've had kern.ipc.nmbclusters for years. It is simple to understand,
easy to predict the outcome of a change, is runtime adjustable, is a
*cap* and not a reservation (like it used to be)
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Albert Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
The real conversation goes like this:
user: Why is my box seeing terrible network performance?
bsdguy: Increase nmbclusters.
user: what is that?
bsdguy: Oh those are the mbufs, just tell me your current value.
user: oh
Alfred,
You're thinking about it one step ahead, not 5 steps ahead.
One step ahead: let's fix maxuser scaling.
5 steps ahead: Let's find all of the non-dynamic things that maxusers
scales, figure out how to make them run-time tunable, and then make a
maxusers.sh user-land script that scales
I think there are two issue here.
One: you have much better idea of how to tune nmbclusters than I do. Cool!
Please put that into the code. I really think that's great and the time you've
pit into giving it serious thought is helpful to all.
Two: you want to divorce nmbclusters (and therefor
Oh, OK, I didn't know it was so involved. I probably don't have anything
to worry about then. :)
-Alfred
On 11/11/12 8:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Alfred,
You're thinking about it one step ahead, not 5 steps ahead.
One step ahead: let's fix maxuser scaling.
5 steps ahead: Let's find all of
On 11 November 2012 09:11, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Oh, OK, I didn't know it was so involved. I probably don't have anything to
worry about then. :)
Nono - I want you to worry about it. But _I_ want there to be a
slightly longer term goal that's less about dictating policy in the
On 11/11/12 12:31 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 11 November 2012 09:11, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Oh, OK, I didn't know it was so involved. I probably don't have anything to
worry about then. :)
Nono - I want you to worry about it. But _I_ want there to be a
slightly longer term goal
on 10/11/2012 04:56 Alfred Perlstein said the following:
Sure, this is magic for i386 PAE machines. 384 maxusers was pretty much the
highest you wanted auto-tuned SAFELY for 32bit KVA on i386.
So 384 is i386 sans 'i' and minus two? :-)
Sorry, I still couldn't find an explanation of 384 in your
On 11/10/12 2:50 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 10/11/2012 04:56 Alfred Perlstein said the following:
Sure, this is magic for i386 PAE machines. 384 maxusers was pretty much the
highest you wanted auto-tuned SAFELY for 32bit KVA on i386.
So 384 is i386 sans 'i' and minus two? :-)
Sorry, I still
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's relatively clear just in the
commit logs/comments. Grep for 384/512 and look around.
Can this reasoning be added as a comment? I did grep for 384 in the log, but
a) I didn't find the
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's relatively clear just in the
commit logs/comments. Grep for 384/512 and look around.
Can this reasoning be added as a comment? I did grep for
On 11/10/12 8:38 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's relatively clear just
in the
commit logs/comments. Grep for 384/512 and look around.
Can this
On 10 November 2012 11:44, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:38 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's relatively clear just in
the
On 11/10/12 8:48 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:44, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:38 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 08:38 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's relatively clear
just in the
commit logs/comments. Grep for 384/512 and look
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd like you can help me craft that comment now?
I think this is short and clear:
===
Limit the amount of kernel address space used to a fixed cap.
384 is an arbitrarily chosen value that leaves 270 MB of KVA available
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Ian Lepore
free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 08:38 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd like you can help me craft that comment now?
I think this is short and clear:
===
Limit the amount of kernel address space used to a fixed
On 10 November 2012 12:45, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd like you can help me craft that comment now?
I think this is short and clear:
===
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
/* pick smaller of kva pages or physical pages */
if ((physpages / 16) (kvapages / 16))
nmbclusters = physpages / 16;
else
nmbclusters = kvapages / 16;
(note: not actual numbers.. kva pages doesn't exist and there's a
pages
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd like you can help me craft that comment now?
I think this is short and
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:45, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd like you can
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Sure, if you'd like you can help me craft that comment now?
I think this is short and clear:
===
Limit the amount of kernel address space used to a fixed cap.
384 is an arbitrarily chosen
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:45, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Ian Lepore
free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 08:38 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It probably could be added, but then a bunch of other people would
complain about the comment being too wordy or
On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It
really needs to be something like nmbclusters defaults to 6% of
physical ram, with machine dependent limits. The MD limits are bad
enough,
On 11/10/12 9:24 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 08:38 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 8:25 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 10 November 2012 11:19, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
Please consult the svn log for this file, it's relatively clear
just in the
commit
On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It
really needs to be something like nmbclusters defaults to 6% of
physical ram, with machine
On Nov 10, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Andre Oppermann an...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It
really needs to be
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann an...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Eitan Adler ead...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10 November 2012 12:45, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Bruce Evans b...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Ian Lepore
free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 08:38 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It probably could be added, but then
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:22:52PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
We've had kern.ipc.nmbclusters for years. It is simple to understand,
easy to predict the outcome of a change, is runtime adjustable, is a
*cap* and not a reservation (like it used to be) and does not require
a reboot like maxusers
Author: alfred
Date: Sat Nov 10 02:08:40 2012
New Revision: 242847
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242847
Log:
Allow maxusers to scale on machines with large address space.
Some hooks are added to clamp down maxusers and nmbclusters for
small address space systems.
On 9 November 2012 21:08, Alfred Perlstein alf...@freebsd.org wrote:
Modified: head/sys/kern/subr_param.c
+#ifdef VM_MAX_AUTOTUNE_MAXUSERS
+if (maxusers VM_MAX_AUTOTUNE_MAXUSERS)
+maxusers = VM_MAX_AUTOTUNE_MAXUSERS;
+#endif
+/*
+
On 11/9/12 6:34 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 9 November 2012 21:08, Alfred Perlstein alf...@freebsd.org wrote:
Modified: head/sys/kern/subr_param.c
+#ifdef VM_MAX_AUTOTUNE_MAXUSERS
+if (maxusers VM_MAX_AUTOTUNE_MAXUSERS)
+maxusers =
39 matches
Mail list logo
