Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:21:14 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r242847 - in head/sys: i386/include kern Message-ID: <17959D7E-4F3C-4513-91F2-3CDDE3A0D41A@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <509EDD93.3020001@freebsd.org> References: <201211100208.qAA28e0v004842@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxg=HPmQS1T-LFsZ=DuKEqH30iJFpkz%2BJGhLr4OBL8nohjg@mail.gmail.com> <509DC25E.5030306@mu.org> <509E3162.5020702@FreeBSD.org> <509E7E7C.9000104@mu.org> <CAF6rxgmV8dx-gsQceQKuMQEsJ%2BGkExcKYxEvQ3kY%2B5_nSjvA3w@mail.gmail.com> <509E830D.5080006@mu.org> <509E847E.30509@mu.org> <CAF6rxgnfm4HURYp=O4MY8rB6H1tGiqJ3rdPx0rZ8Swko5mAOZg@mail.gmail.com> <509E8930.50800@mu.org> <CAF6rxgmabVuR0JoFURRUF%2Bed0hmT=LF_n5LXSip0ibU0hk6qWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE5yCouCWr4NKbgnjKfLcjc8EWqG0wRiSmXDDnrnM3%2BUc8KVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxg=ryNEMEidJdgf8-Ab=bD15R1ypcz-bS8183U4JK_Q17g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE5yCoeTXf7x4ZBDXnHJ4dnFi-_2R28kB8HxOB%2B=Je4aJGYQQ@mail.gmail.com> <509EA869.6030407@freebsd.org> <509ED439.8090607@mu.org> <509EDD93.3020001@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 10, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 10.11.2012 23:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> On 11/10/12 11:18 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> On 10.11.2012 19:04, Peter Wemm wrote: >>>> This is complicated but we need a simple user visible view of it. It >>>> really needs to be something like "nmbclusters defaults to 6% of >>>> physical ram, with machine dependent limits". The MD limits are bad >>>> enough, and using bogo-units like "maxusers" just makes it worse. >>>=20 >>> Yes, that would be optimal. >>>=20 >> No it would not. >>=20 >> I used to be able to tell people "hey just try increasing maxusers" and t= hey would and suddenly the >> box would be OK. >>=20 >> Now I'll have to remember 3,4,5,10,20x tunable to increase? >=20 > No. The whole mbuf and cluster stuff isn't allocated or reserved > at boot time. We simply need a limit to prevent it from exhausting > all available kvm / physical memory whichever is less. >=20 > Other than that there is no relation to maxusers except historic > behavior. >=20 > So the ideal mbuf limit is just short of keeling the kernel over > no matter what maxusers says. There also isn't much to tune then > as the only fix would be to add more physical ram. I think that makes sense. If you have ideas please look into it.=20 -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17959D7E-4F3C-4513-91F2-3CDDE3A0D41A>