From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 16 05:44:30 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@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 9666A4B8 for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 05:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from people.fsn.hu (people.fsn.hu [195.228.252.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "people.fsn.hu", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 Primary Intermediate Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A3602ABB for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 05:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by people.fsn.hu (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7BDB1138C928; Fri, 16 May 2014 07:35:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.3 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MF-ACE0E1EA [pR: 9.9328] X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20140516_07354_9E0C8488 X-CRM114-Status: Good ( pR: 9.9328 ) X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted X-DSPAM-Processed: Fri May 16 07:35:41 2014 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9946 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 5375a3ad272301511813044 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, From*"Nagy, Attila" , 0.00029, wrote+>, 0.00178, >+I, 0.00238, >+>, 0.00304, >+>, 0.00304, >+Is, 0.00308, ZFS, 0.00436, Subject*ZFS, 0.00476, Received*online.co.hu+[195.228.243.99]), 0.00523, Received*[195.228.243.99]), 0.00523, Received*online.co.hu, 0.00523, Received*(japan.t, 0.00523, Received*(japan.t+online.co.hu, 0.00523, wrote, 0.00551, "+>, 0.00581, Subject*fix, 0.00653, Received*from+japan.t, 0.00653, Received*online.private+(japan.t, 0.00653, Is+there, 0.00653, Received*japan.t+online.private, 0.00653, Received*japan.t, 0.00653, To*FreeBSD.org, 0.00714, >+Well, 0.00746, "as, 0.00869, Subject*[patch], 0.00869, boxes+and, 0.99000, X-Spambayes-Classification: ham; 0.00 Received: from japan.t-online.private (japan.t-online.co.hu [195.228.243.99]) by people.fsn.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1268138C90D; Fri, 16 May 2014 07:35:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5375A3A8.3010406@fsn.hu> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 07:35:36 +0200 From: "Nagy, Attila" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karl Denninger , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/187594: [zfs] [patch] ZFS ARC behavior problem and fix References: <201405151530.s4FFU0d6050580@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201405151530.s4FFU0d6050580@freefall.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 05:44:30 -0000 On 05/15/14 17:30, Karl Denninger wrote: > > I have now been running the latest delta as posted 26 March -- it is=20 > coming up on two months now, has been stable here and I've seen several=20 > positive reports and no negative ones on impact for others. Performance=20 > continues to be "as expected." > > Is there an expectation on this being merged forward and/or MFC'd? > Well, the expectation is quite high -at least from my side :-)-. We struggle with stable/10 boxes and ZFS since they are introduced in our environment, while stable/9 goes nicely under the same workload. OS 10 swaps a lot to allow ARC to grow and without swap space, it starts killing random processes after 20-30 days, depending on how much RAM it has and how big I set the arc_max size (without it, the situation is even worse). I wonder, nobody uses stable/10 with ZFS?