From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 23 11:37:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF34E4FA for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72893B11 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s7NBbuMS062852 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:37:56 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 187594] [zfs] [patch] ZFS ARC behavior problem and fix Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:37:55 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: fullermd@over-yonder.net X-Bugzilla-Status: In Discussion X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:37:56 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187594 --- Comment #25 from fullermd@over-yonder.net --- Having run it for a few months on a number of boxes now, my general impression is that it seems like it goes a little _too_ far (with default options anyway; I haven't tried any tuning) toward making the ARC give up its lunch money to anybody who looks threateningly at it. It feels like it should be a bit more aggressive, and historically was and did fine. However, it's still _much_ nicer than the unpatched case, where the rest of the system starves and hides out in the swap space. So from here, while perhaps imperfect and in need of some tuning work, it's still a significant improvement on the prior state, so landing it sounds just fine to me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.