From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Fri Jun 15 05:15:44 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE781019BFB for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:15:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "www.zefox.org", Issuer "www.zefox.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B90878AF2 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:15:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w5F5FXI5037794 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:15:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w5F5FSgF037792; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:15:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:15:27 -0700 From: bob prohaska To: Warner Losh Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska Subject: Re: GPT vs MBR for swap devices Message-ID: <20180615051527.GB37370@www.zefox.net> References: <20180614175622.GC35161@www.zefox.net> <201806142110.w5ELAL0N046840@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20180615035225.GA37370@www.zefox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:15:45 -0000 On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:00:59PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > I think that's because USB flash can't swap fast enough to keep up with the > page demand. You might be able to confirm this by looking at the write > rates to the swap portions for the various other media with gstat. I'll try capturing vmstat -c -w 5 to a file, but will need help interpreting the results. It seems particularly hard to correlate vmstat output with corresponding compilation activity. > I > suspect it's FTL is doing more expensive garbage collection under a swap > work load leading to long pauses from time to time that the VM system > responds to by starting OOM too soon. > Wouldn't flash speed issues equally affect SD flash and USB flash swap? >From what I can see SD flash performs far better than USB flash for swap on the RPI3. Also, using 1 GB USB flash swap together with 1 GB SD flash swap produced worse performance than the 1 GB SD flash swap alone. Are there contention issues between USB traffic and SD traffic? I've always thought they were mostly independent. If they obstruct one another that might help explain what I'm seeing. It would also make clear that my goal of "interleaving" swap devices was badly mistaken. It's worth remembering that USB flash swap (2 GB, in a single partiton) seems to work quite well on an RPI2 running current. If it works on a Pi2 shouldn't it work on a Pi3? Thanks for reading! bob prohaska