From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 16 11:47:19 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9B41065673 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:47:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EED58FC16 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PIK0L-0008SW-DK for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:47:17 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:47:17 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:47:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:47:09 +0100 Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <20101116003029.GC79816@numachi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: "High" cpu usage when using ZFS cache device X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:47:19 -0000 On 11/16/10 08:16, Christer Solskogen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Brian Reichert wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:50:50PM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote: >>> My load on my i7 920 is certainly higher when I add a 8GB usb stick as >>> a ZFS cache device. >> >> USB 1.0? 2.0? Dunno even if that would make a difference... > > This is USB 2.0. I didn't know USB had such much to say on the cpu. You can easily test it - use the stick as a simple disk device with UFS and see how much CPU does it take simply to talk to the device.