From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 7 10:20:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6C5193 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:20:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF3AB21 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t57so9510607wey.39 for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:20:16 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=bfzGJYe/LVh3VXW29O3nSw7dU0qQ0QufQ1lzRS6nQB0=; b=embaGmjxxBRa1hexol0UcoW3X2Caoj1KcHe3c+PELCllQ0/TgRQSOQUTzmTV/83GBF IkF0PHG1GUy1/VtQyFIcrVly9CcgYBCejp0vLfI/GWYkjABQf6gLjM4uQsnGbORtqsOO 1lnFT+GRQ2dWbfjd63aDpA3OSOeEJrE9RWf0Mn51h24vwxfmKaCDVrvmQJ7Chzf1E0P+ BUBq1YstAnqWzOUfVh0ToM/sGDsP6XX0bd0lLaq1jyHEbtGn7A9T3WzW+WKE350nzNg1 06CfAr1KoCgFDwgbk3ChMWk8YIuUZQLDaDmZR78EEgpQmNGoTqWOce6IgsDEYNqRbgnB N6Lw== X-Received: by 10.194.88.164 with SMTP id bh4mr79704477wjb.37.1357554016373; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:20:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.123] (tui75-3-88-168-239-38.fbx.proxad.net. [88.168.239.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p2sm12752956wic.7.2013.01.07.02.20.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:20:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: ZFS/RAIDZ and SAMBA: abyssimal performance From: Fleuriot Damien In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:20:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <74D89D84-CC53-49A9-8D69-AF255A8323E0@my.gd> References: <50E6DE91.7010404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <1ADC2ECB-70FF-4DDD-9D62-16E2EEECDD8B@my.gd> To: Daniel Kalchev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6Ju8cWbKfJOQ0K0UTHeh+c1ndAO6lB5D+augkdbsQJUb4jSI9bkLkvMRZs3MjjqBiSPLe Cc: Current FreeBSD , "O. Hartmann" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:20:24 -0000 On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >=20 > On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> And network cards: >> # Up a bit our intel cards parameters >> hw.em.txd=3D4096 >> hw.em.rxd=3D4096 >> hw.em.tx_int_delay=3D512 >> hw.em.rx_int_delay=3D512 >> hw.em.tx_abs_int_delay=3D1024 >> hw.em.rx_abs_int_delay=3D1024 >>=20 >=20 > I am curious why we need to manually set up these values. Especially = the txd/rxd -- here are few controllers supported by the em driver that = can't handle 4096 descriptors and the choice could really be made at = driver attach time.. That could also permit different em interfaces in = the system (using different chips) to have different settings. >=20 > My belief is the auto tuning should set things up for maximum = performance, given the hardware and if someone really needs smaller = queues they could just use the tunables.=20 >=20 > Are there drawbacks? >=20 > Daniel Well perhaps the code to handle auto tuning isn't present in the driver = itself. I'm not a huge fan of the idea, I believe it would be rather taxing to = implement all the exceptions and that some could easily be overlooked. I believe it's better to have a more user-friendly documentation and let = users tune the hardware to suit their needs.