Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:37:19 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental? Message-ID: <CAF-QHFUaTt1bZpDnWWMP49d6t5dhB%2B726NaosN2GzLeSFsRR5A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGMYy3tbMWU6JU1%2B%2B5XmzjZTrV1=oAgRaaDE3-=MMT73F_ojQQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXMm9K_fbOmvG2gvXxDfKakkgpPt9MLifqDxa4wCibMExg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1110011122030.882@multics.mit.edu> <CADLo83-s_3H8PbbxOPPxbe0m10U0U5JW-feB294dFs%2BQ3iTWvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGMYy3ssi%2BkAuufDTHA1z6u7jRrZwRRkCCkcO94GHNGF9Rku_w@mail.gmail.com> <20111002020231.GA70864@icarus.home.lan> <CAGMYy3sCCxOiVqeP4PVbvxnpcyoyQZoL%2Bw3nY8STYnpUNfj6JQ@mail.gmail.com> <j6aorc$hf0$1@dough.gmane.org> <CAGMYy3tbMWU6JU1%2B%2B5XmzjZTrV1=oAgRaaDE3-=MMT73F_ojQQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3 October 2011 20:37, Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> wrote: > It's mostly "normal" configuration -- 6GB RAM, 14GB swap, ZFS as /usr; > Initialized with pgbench -i -s 500 pgbench. Ok, this should be enough ~~ 7 GB database on a 6 GB machine. >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- run pgbench & observe the results. > > pgbench -t 20000 -c 64 -S pgbench > > Can't seem to reproduce: > > # df -Httmpfs > Filesystem =C2=A0 =C2=A0Size =C2=A0 =C2=A0Used =C2=A0 Avail Capacity =C2= =A0Mounted on > tmpfs =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A010G =C2=A0 =C2=A0 69k =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 10G =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0% =C2=A0 =C2=A0/tmp > > Any suggestions? Can't think of anything to add :) I don't think increasing the database size would affect it much. Comparing what you did to my original report at http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-current@freebsd.org/msg126491.html, it seems like that bug is gone! But my machine was one of the bigger ones (for that time) - AFAIK 24 GB RAM and many cores (16?). Maybe there is some race condition which is exposed on large machines. >> This should create really bad contention problem for memory between >> postgresql and ZFS, which should manifest itself in tmpfs shrinking to 0 >> bytes free. >> >> If you don't get this problem then great, it might be solved! I don't have the equipment now to test it myself but I agree that based on what you posted it looks solved.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF-QHFUaTt1bZpDnWWMP49d6t5dhB%2B726NaosN2GzLeSFsRR5A>