Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:51:51 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, re@freebsd.org, nonesuch@longcount.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@ixsystems.com> Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 Message-ID: <51DAD207.3090008@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAKYr3zye9AaVAsEhvtXfkQgvz8Suh3ur40xNreKc4vccHojj4Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <51D90B9B.9080209@ixsystems.com> <51D92826.1070707@freebsd.org> <51D9B24B.8070303@ixsystems.com> <51DACE93.9050608@freebsd.org> <CAKYr3zye9AaVAsEhvtXfkQgvz8Suh3ur40xNreKc4vccHojj4Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08.07.2013 16:41, Outback Dingo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org <mailto:andre@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > On 07.07.2013 20:24, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 7/7/13 1:34 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Can you help me with with testing? > > Yes. Please give me your proposed changes and I'll stand up a machine and give feedback. > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~__andre/mfc-autotuning-20130708.__diff > <http://people.freebsd.org/%7Eandre/mfc-autotuning-20130708.diff>; > > This is functional bundle MFC of these original commits: > > MFC r242029 (alfred): > > Allow autotune maxusers > 384 on 64 bit machines. > > MFC r242847 (alfred): > > Allow maxusers to scale on machines with large address space. > > MFC r243631 (andre): > > Base the mbuf related limits on the available physical memory or > kernel memory, whichever is lower. The overall mbuf related memory > limit must be set so that mbufs (and clusters of various sizes) > can't exhaust physical RAM or KVM. > > At the same time divorce maxfiles from maxusers and set maxfiles to > physpages / 8 with a floor based on maxusers. This way busy servers > can make use of the significantly increased mbuf limits with a much > larger number of open sockets. > > MFC r243639 (andre): > > Complete r243631 by applying the remainder of kern_mbuf.c that got > lost while merging into the commit tree. > > MFC r243668 (andre): > > Using a long is the wrong type to represent the realmem and maxmbufmem > variable as they may overflow on i386/PAE and i386 with > 2GB RAM. > > MFC r243995, r243996, r243997 (pjd): > > Style cleanups, Make use of the fact that uma_zone_set_max(9) already > returns actual limit set. > > MFC r244080 (andre): > > Prevent long type overflow of realmem calculation on ILP32 by forcing > calculation to be in quad_t space. Fix style issue with second parameter > to qmin(). > > MFC r245469 (alfred): > > Do not autotune ncallout to be greater than 18508. > > MFC r245575 (andre): > > Move the mbuf memory limit calculations from init_param2() to > tunable_mbinit() where it is next to where it is used later. > > MFC r246207 (andre): > > Remove unused VM_MAX_AUTOTUNE_NMBCLUSTERS define. > > MFC r249843 (andre): > > Base the calculation of maxmbufmem in part on kmem_map size > instead of kernel_map size to prevent kernel memory exhaustion > by mbufs and a subsequent panic on physical page allocation > failure. > > > > would it be safe to throw a couple of high end storage systems into this testing pool ?? > each has 128G Memory, and dual quad core procs, with 10GB Intel interfaces all they > are design to do it samba and nfs and ive been fighting performance with samba and > nfs on these systems, Id be curious if autotuning might help, to be honest, theres so > much to tweak for samba, nfs, zfs alone in different formats, im surprised anyone has > it running efficiently. I don't know enough about the limits of Samba setups. Testing this MFC may or may not significantly improve the performance, though at least we'll know that it doesn't hurt. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51DAD207.3090008>