From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 4 07:56:47 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7485016A417 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:56:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE5913C478 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:56:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot26.obsecurity.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9F01A4D82; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 00:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rot26.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A8FD1C0F6; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 03:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 03:56:46 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Wojciech Puchar Message-ID: <20070804075646.GA3872@rot26.obsecurity.org> References: <20070803172639.F17414@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20070803164621.GA65921@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070803220027.C19191@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20070803202757.GA68434@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070804093853.F24954@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070804093853.F24954@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: parformance patch? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:56:47 -0000 On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:40:14AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >>loaded servers for over a year with FreeBSD 6.2 > > > >Lucky you ;) Doesn't mean that parts of the kernel you're not using > >can handle it. > > well - it exactly mean that it can :) I know for a fact that MAXPHYS cannot safely just be increased without other work, so if you are interested in working on this you should study more carefully how it is used directly and indirectly by other parts of the kernel. > >This is pageout, not pagein. Probably the negative effect is that the > >when paging out the system does I/O in larger chunks, improving swap > >throughput but increasing delays for other applications. > > actually i tested changing it to 64 it was positive improvement, but after > shutting down kernel crashed. Did you measure interactivity and other aspects of performance during pageout? Kris