Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:01:21 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Borja Marcos <BORJAMAR@SARENET.ES> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Memory allocation problems (ZFS/NFS/amd64) Message-ID: <46F2DFA1.6080709@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <A9B46B5C-F44F-4A1B-8989-E0E7CAA70BFA@SARENET.ES> References: <5870F83F-7174-47AA-98AE-C1DE8972E0C8@SARENET.ES> <fcrmmp$2ug$1@sea.gmane.org> <613318C3-6B66-4758-A0D4-97405D6A1914@SARENET.ES> <46F23166.8070908@FreeBSD.org> <A9B46B5C-F44F-4A1B-8989-E0E7CAA70BFA@SARENET.ES>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Borja Marcos wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2007, at 10:37, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> Borja Marcos wrote: >>> On 19 Sep 2007, at 19:35, Ivan Voras wrote: >>>> Borja Marcos wrote: >>>> >>>>> These are not innocuous messages, the machine is rejecting connections >>>>> like crazy. Any ideas? >>>>> The number of established TCP connections was around 490, and the >>>>> machine has 2 GB of RAM. >>>> >>>> Just a guess: what is your vm.kmem_size_max and have you tried >>>> increasing it? >>> It's the first thing I thought, and I cranked it to a very high value >>> just in case: >>> vm.kmem_size_max: 1073741824 >> >> You actually wanted to tune vm.kmem_size too or it may not actually >> change the value used (_max is just a ceiling for autotuning). >> However if this is i386 you can't set it that high without also >> adjusting KVA_PAGES too (which has other effects). > > It's an amd64. I understand that i386 is mostly out of the question if I > want to play reasonably safe with ZFS :) > > Oh, ok. I will try with both, then. Should I try the same value? Perhaps > it's a bit high, but I understand that with a 64 bit address space I can > set it sort of arbitrarily high without many side effects. Yes, you should set them both to the same value. Krishelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46F2DFA1.6080709>