Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:39:39 -0400 From: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? Message-ID: <4C84EF1B.5040004@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4C84EBFE.7030408@icyb.net.ua> References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><AANLkTi=6bta-Obrh2ejLCHENEbhV5stbMsvfek3Ki4ba@mail.gmail.com><4C825D65.3040004@DataIX.net> <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> <4C84C72A.3020506@icyb.net.ua> <C8FDED84AE204EB3B143C3F8301E58E3@multiplay.co.uk> <4C84EBFE.7030408@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070309050609030205070100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/06/2010 09:26, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 06/09/2010 16:23 Steven Hartland said the following: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" <avg@icyb.net.ua> >>>> 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? > Ugh! I keep forgetting about this one! and confusing it for the needfree change. /Ugh! It is attached as well. -- jhell,v --------------070309050609030205070100 Content-Type: text/plain; name="vm_paging_needed.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vm_paging_needed.patch" diff -r 1f75c636f0d4 sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c --- a/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c Mon Sep 06 09:32:32 2010 -0400 +++ b/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c Mon Sep 06 09:36:57 2010 -0400 @@ -2164,7 +2164,7 @@ * If pages are needed or we're within 2048 pages * of needing to page need to reclaim */ - if (vm_pages_needed || (vm_paging_target() > -2048)) + if (vm_paging_needed()) return (1); #if 0 --------------070309050609030205070100--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C84EF1B.5040004>