From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 5 23:34:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD7010656C1 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 23:34:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhellenthal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6458FC16 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 23:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so1693058ywt.13 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:34:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZYzZYqZ2ggyVjSEW99Uj3uaNOyCr+RU0NWq1zUBcpWo=; b=kn3YthQQ/L35o1zkTMhC7JFFFUHlFokT2ZLtTB4w1IxBhOQ+UBwjB3gxdeKdXSVVjd zYmlWfDKeBJNvL/9KhOr98k4j6XRpzvACHHkPK/oOyglyjEDV4VcRtjFXk4XiWqcBRae gyMRk1MuzFDjJ3mHv8OOnIRR+ACx4wTW/1Zjc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=drzYLeU45eiDUF7Oss5eAT3gbX4GyQOnA55FiNuDPlypXpqG5+Mf8+JfY6rzeQcRzW 2p6URlxrIkWdFSQ0N7uansgoQQipeA1bhumEO4rnaVM8ADmOnPWRQtYqh5KtK6mjeq9T s93YikWRUh2MPgpdT0y58ItL/4KXPU08CRcWk= Received: by 10.151.79.11 with SMTP id g11mr450112ybl.92.1283729672980; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centel.dataix.local (adsl-99-181-137-20.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net [99.181.137.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q21sm5213479ybk.23.2010.09.05.16.34.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: "J. Hellenthal" Message-ID: <4C842905.2080602@DataIX.net> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:34:29 -0400 From: jhell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100806 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><4C825D65.3040004@DataIX.net> <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> <4C83A214.1080204@DataIX.net> <06B9D23F202D4DB88D69B7C4507986B7@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <06B9D23F202D4DB88D69B7C4507986B7@multiplay.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:34:34 -0000 On 09/05/2010 16:13, Steven Hartland wrote: >> 3656: uint64_t available_memory = ptoa((uintmax_t)cnt.v_free_count >> 3657: + cnt.v_cache_count); > earlier at 3614 I have what I think your after which is: > uint64_t available_memory = ptoa((uintmax_t)cnt.v_free_count); Alright change this to the above, recompile and re-run your tests. Effectively before this change that apparently still needs to be MFC'd or MFS'd would not allow ZFS to look at or use cnt.v_cache_count. Pretty much to sum it up "available mem = cache + free" This possibly could cause what your seeing but there might be other changes still yet TBD. Ill look into what else has changed from RELEASE -> STABLE. Also do you check out your sources with svn(1) or csup(1) ? Regards, -- jhell,v