Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:35:07 +0100 From: "Steven Hartland" <killing@multiplay.co.uk> To: "Kostik Belousov" <kostikbel@gmail.com>, "Andriy Gapon" <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? Message-ID: <640F8FCE649448A4A8FF22214C993B10@multiplay.co.uk> References: <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> <4C83A214.1080204@DataIX.net> <06B9D23F202D4DB88D69B7C4507986B7@multiplay.co.uk> <4C842905.2080602@DataIX.net> <330B5DB2215F43899ABAEC2CF71C2EE0@multiplay.co.uk> <4C84C857.1070306@icyb.net.ua> <20100906110406.GC2396@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 01:54:15PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> How does ufs deal with this, does it take inactive into account? Seems a bit
>>> silly for inactive pages to prevent reuse for extended periods when the
>>> memory could be better used as cache.
>>
>> Inactive pages are also a cache, just a different kind.
> Not quite. Inactive pages may be dirty. Such pages cannot be freed or reused
> without pageout.
I assume my little test that allocates ram then frees it, which then returned
to "free" rules this out in this case though?
Regards
Steve
================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.
In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337
or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?640F8FCE649448A4A8FF22214C993B10>