From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 6 13:26:29 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5714D10656BB for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:26:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9198FC15 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id QAA02948; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:26:22 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <4C84EBFE.7030408@icyb.net.ua> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:26:22 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100823 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><4C825D65.3040004@DataIX.net> <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> <4C84C72A.3020506@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, jhell Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:26:29 -0000 on 06/09/2010 16:23 Steven Hartland said the following: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" >>> No joy, still drops down to arc_min even with those two patches and changing >>> to vm_paging_needed from the post Artem mentioned: >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2010-August/032731.html >>> >>> So I suspect if I hadn't put in a high arc_min as well it would be back down >>> at silly low levels. >> >> But we don't really know this, do we? >> >> I think that it would be useful for you and perhaps for us, if you'd set up >> monitoring (and graphing) of key memory-related parameters. >> E.g. at least the following sysctls: >> kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.size >> vm.stats.vm.v_pdwakeups >> vm.stats.vm.v_cache_count >> vm.stats.vm.v_inactive_count >> vm.stats.vm.v_active_count >> vm.stats.vm.v_wire_count >> vm.stats.vm.v_free_count >> >> This would allow to see dynamics of memory consumption and correlation with >> pagedaemon events. > > Now monitoring these each minute to an rrd and text file and updated 8-STABLE > with the following patches: > http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v15/stable-8-v15.patch > http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_metaslab_v2.patch > http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/zfs_abe_stat_rrwlock.patch > and then the needfree.patch I already posted. Cool! What about vm_paging_needed() patch? -- Andriy Gapon