From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 16 07:32:42 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 4A0404A6 for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 07:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CBC228F for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 07:32:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id KAA26558; Fri, 16 May 2014 10:32:37 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1WlCdA-0008Ah-Ua; Fri, 16 May 2014 10:32:36 +0300 Message-ID: <5375BEDC.9090202@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:31:40 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Nagy, Attila" , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/187594: [zfs] [patch] ZFS ARC behavior problem and fix References: <201405151530.s4FFU0d6050580@freefall.freebsd.org> <5375A3A8.3010406@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: <5375A3A8.3010406@fsn.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 07:32:42 -0000 on 16/05/2014 08:35 Nagy, Attila said the following: > 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? Please try to upgrade to r265945 or later. -- Andriy Gapon