Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:42:02 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs + uma Message-ID: <4C95CCDA.7010007@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009182225050.23448@desktop> References: <4C93236B.4050906@freebsd.org> <4C935F56.4030903@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181221560.86826@fledge.watson.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181135430.23448@desktop> <4C95C804.1010701@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009182225050.23448@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: > I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still have high > enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added UMA support > to address this issue in zfs. If you have allocations which don't require > per-cpu caching and are very large why even use UMA? Good point. Right now I am running with 4 items/bucket limit for items larger than 32KB. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C95CCDA.7010007>