Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 08:20:20 +0000 From: =?utf-8?B?S2FybGkgU2rDtmJlcmc=?= <Karli.Sjoberg@slu.se> To: "erik@tefre.com" <erik@tefre.com> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, "karl@fs.denninger.net" <karl@fs.denninger.net> Subject: Re: Differences in memory handling on systems with/out cache drives Message-ID: <5F9E965F5A80BC468BE5F40576769F099DF8DDCD@exchange2-1> In-Reply-To: <545A43EB.7070603@tefre.com> References: <5F9E965F5A80BC468BE5F40576769F099DF87F57@exchange2-1> <5F9E965F5A80BC468BE5F40576769F099DF87FBB@exchange2-1> <545A43EB.7070603@tefre.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 16:36 +0100, Erik Stian Tefre wrote: > On 05. nov. 2014 09:53, Karli Sjöberg wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 08:44 +0000, Karli Sjöberg wrote: > >> Hey all! > >> > >> Still investigating the intermittent lockups we are experiencing on our > >> storage systems and have started to compare memory graphs from our > >> Graphite monitoring system. What´s interesting about two of our systems > >> is that they both have the same amount of RAM; 32 GB. But on one of > >> them, I have "zpool remove"'d the cache drives from the pool and have > >> been able to study how different their memory graphs now look like. > >> > >> Also worth noting is that the cache-less system nearly haven´t swapped > >> at all (1112K) since the last stall 20 days ago, while the other system > >> has swapped 78 MB during it´s 48 days of uptime. > >> > >> I´ve attached both screenshots from the two systems, with- and without > >> cache drives, displaying a period of 12 hours. > >> > >> What´s most notable are the characteristic cuts that happen on the > >> cache-less system when ZFS goes in and evicts blocks from ARC that shows > >> as a decrease in "wired" and increase in "free", that just doesn´t > >> happen/looks different in the system with cache drive configured in the > >> pool. > >> > >> What´s your take on this? Are we hitting bug: 187594 perhaps? How can we > >> know? > Take a look at the recent thread on freebsd-stable@, subject "ARC size > limit". Possibly related issues have been patched in stable/10, the > mailing list thread includes a patch for releng/10.1. Thanks! I looked at it and saw that that´s one that´s going to be used for 10.1[1] and the patch referred to is the same as the one developed for bug 187594[2], which still has status "In Discussion". The patch really should be verified by OP there before issue is _really_ declared resolved. @Karl Do you have any chance of verifying this, as you were the one that first reported about it? I would personally feel so much better knowing we can finally rid ourselves of this menace in 10.1:) [1]:https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2014-November/080894.html [2]:https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187594#c189 -- Med Vänliga Hälsningar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Karli Sjöberg Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Box 7079 (Visiting Address Kronåsvägen 8) S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Phone: +46-(0)18-67 15 66 karli.sjoberg@slu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5F9E965F5A80BC468BE5F40576769F099DF8DDCD>