From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 20 21:01:22 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483E616A41B; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:01:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468A813C468; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:01:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <46F2DFA1.6080709@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:01:21 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borja Marcos References: <5870F83F-7174-47AA-98AE-C1DE8972E0C8@SARENET.ES> <613318C3-6B66-4758-A0D4-97405D6A1914@SARENET.ES> <46F23166.8070908@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Memory allocation problems (ZFS/NFS/amd64) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:01:22 -0000 Borja Marcos wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2007, at 10:37, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> Borja Marcos wrote: >>> On 19 Sep 2007, at 19:35, Ivan Voras wrote: >>>> Borja Marcos wrote: >>>> >>>>> These are not innocuous messages, the machine is rejecting connections >>>>> like crazy. Any ideas? >>>>> The number of established TCP connections was around 490, and the >>>>> machine has 2 GB of RAM. >>>> >>>> Just a guess: what is your vm.kmem_size_max and have you tried >>>> increasing it? >>> It's the first thing I thought, and I cranked it to a very high value >>> just in case: >>> vm.kmem_size_max: 1073741824 >> >> You actually wanted to tune vm.kmem_size too or it may not actually >> change the value used (_max is just a ceiling for autotuning). >> However if this is i386 you can't set it that high without also >> adjusting KVA_PAGES too (which has other effects). > > It's an amd64. I understand that i386 is mostly out of the question if I > want to play reasonably safe with ZFS :) > > Oh, ok. I will try with both, then. Should I try the same value? Perhaps > it's a bit high, but I understand that with a 64 bit address space I can > set it sort of arbitrarily high without many side effects. Yes, you should set them both to the same value. Kris