From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug 22 21:27:01 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3416BC
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:27:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.theusgroup.com (mail.theusgroup.com [64.122.243.222])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F12C93616
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:27:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.theusgroup.com (Postfix, from userid 20)
 id 62F8096D; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=theusgroup.com;
 s=mail; t=1408742299;
 bh=EFo0Wu9JuSkWy7SucFGXOMDCyCs8FvS+b7v78Apos2k=;
 h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date;
 b=iWQMAEGgrxCMZscp46xPGCqNJqUbG/sI3k59+MGiBOEHZDi7akEGTqdI38ebUSk3/
 y61ORbBH98HmmC+p05IB06mD2Squ2zj0vBJ6vcQMLZ1e4siXQyuc7OE/4mJahqCPVT
 kjcbGypxlHNaVb1WgA5j4aJnRn7quaWzRCgz179U=
From: John <john@theusgroup.com>
To: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 187594] [zfs] [patch] ZFS ARC behavior problem and fix
In-reply-to: <53F73A39.9090000@freebsd.org>
References: <bug-187594-3630@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
 <bug-187594-3630-o97lWSCObB@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
 <CE3228E2C273EA4A9DC12FA75E921B8C4BC4948E6F@PAIMAIL.pai.local>
 <53F73A39.9090000@freebsd.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>
 message dated "Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:40:25 +0200."
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:18:19 -0700
Message-Id: <20140822211819.62F8096D@mail.theusgroup.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:27:01 -0000

>Am 22.08.2014 um 13:53 schrieb Michael Jung:
>> I have been using the patches on a number of machines both physical and virtual with between
>> 8-64GB without issues.  These include 10/10-STABLE/11-Current serving NFS/SMB and a poudriere
>> build box that is boot on UFS and ZFS for poudriere.
>> 
>> Uptimes of 90+ days without issue.  It has been a godsend on all machines even my desktop with
>> 8GB full X11 and numerous application + jails.
>> 
>> No ZFS tuning.  I hope that whatever further review moves forward so this can be committed.
>> 
>> --mikej
>
>I second this request. I've also been using this patch on a system that
>required reboots to recover from low performance states that were not
>well handled without the patch.
> ...
>This patch should really have gone into -CURRENT, months ago, IMHO ...
>
>Regards, STefan

Given how long this patch has been in use with nothing but positive feedback,
and still having not been committed, one has to wonder why?

Is it NIH, and something else. It least one committer commented in the past
that Karl's approach isn't how he would have done it. Is that the problem?

It's ridiculous we've had to keep adding this patch to keep our zfs systems
running with decent performance.

Why hasn't this been committed?

John Theus
TheUsGroup.com