From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 20 23:41:39 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50ED3B3B for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD162A19 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.44]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Unew1o0020x6nqcA4nhepR; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:41:38 +0000 Received: from jdc.koitsu.org ([69.181.136.108]) by omta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Unhd1o00P2LW5AV8YnheKL; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:41:38 +0000 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DAC651744B1; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:41:37 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Steven Hartland Subject: Re: Consistently "high" CPU load on 10.0-STABLE Message-ID: <20140720234137.GA89084@icarus.home.lan> References: <20140720062413.GA56318@icarus.home.lan> <97EA8E571E634DBBAA70F7AA7F0DE97C@multiplay.co.uk> <20140720173524.GA67065@icarus.home.lan> <20140720201655.GA70545@icarus.home.lan> <20140720225845.GA81033@icarus.home.lan> <3E5D732C440140B9AEE204B91E5B120E@multiplay.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1405899698; bh=u6PJnm3/Xn+7yTNZHm4uMjkLPLt6D7IHhRRDKcZhAEQ=; h=Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ul/NZVtvHwaz6cxSt0qV8v8EdZ0R6WtRsCiIb+f25ZJgTgDP3d8qN2lFLzk4uNtsQ WZVWnS8v9uwIoyyipWs4dvt3+6TGrwtIKKueheO3OBrl2Lg30xPFHZKR2eyEtWLw0k lu8256UpildlB7h23gC6o7h5IAMzojrx9UaL1g52TYo9vh5wibdnGvbefgDUGkLCnn N5thUKarnVMRlExYCvGAfU5wXz1jWQ/IoAQOY4hcHgDNYu29MefZAEX8W1N76AfG50 lMbDy4qOisaNji8vvWttPG+FpZN76vtxDFepxVBLTof54phuRuTRLp0eOJHEvgTWR1 BfTcJIN2Q/8Ag== Cc: Adrian Chadd , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:41:39 -0000 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:22:38AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Hartland" > > > Not sure if its in stable/10 but there was some talk about making > > ZFS use lz4 for some things by default, wonder if that might have > > something to do with it? > > Another silly question is do you see the same increase on 10.0-RELEASE? Good question, not silly. The answer is I don't know -- when I moved from RELENG_9 to RELENG_10, I reinstalled straight from memstick here: ftp://ftp4.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/amd64/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/10.0/ I always install -STABLE and not -RELEASE because for nearly 15 years I've found too many broken things in -RELEASE that don't get fixed soon enough for me. I can try "rolling back" in SVN to r256281 and try that (I'm afraid to find out what buildkernel/buildworld will break on though, heh). I think that's the rev as close to 10.0-RELEASE as possible? http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=256281 -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org | | UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |