Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:42:31 +0100 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs + uma Message-ID: <CA32CE04-5884-4E07-A592-C19FFDE3485F@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C95CCDA.7010007@freebsd.org> References: <4C93236B.4050906@freebsd.org> <4C935F56.4030903@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181221560.86826@fledge.watson.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181135430.23448@desktop> <4C95C804.1010701@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009182225050.23448@desktop> <4C95CCDA.7010007@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19 Sep 2010, at 09:42, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following: >> I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still = have high >> enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added = UMA support >> to address this issue in zfs. If you have allocations which don't = require >> per-cpu caching and are very large why even use UMA? >=20 > Good point. > Right now I am running with 4 items/bucket limit for items larger than = 32KB. If allocate turnover is low, I'd think that malloc(9) would do better = here. How many allocs/frees per second are there in peak operation? Robert=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA32CE04-5884-4E07-A592-C19FFDE3485F>