Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:34:29 -0400 From: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs very poor performance compared to ufs due to lack of cache? Message-ID: <4C842905.2080602@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <06B9D23F202D4DB88D69B7C4507986B7@multiplay.co.uk> References: <5DB6E7C798E44D33A05673F4B773405E@multiplay.co.uk><AANLkTi=6bta-Obrh2ejLCHENEbhV5stbMsvfek3Ki4ba@mail.gmail.com><4C825D65.3040004@DataIX.net> <7EA7AD058C0143B2BF2471CC121C1687@multiplay.co.uk> <1F64110BFBD5468B8B26879A9D8C94EF@multiplay.co.uk> <4C83A214.1080204@DataIX.net> <06B9D23F202D4DB88D69B7C4507986B7@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/05/2010 16:13, Steven Hartland wrote: >> 3656: uint64_t available_memory = ptoa((uintmax_t)cnt.v_free_count >> 3657: + cnt.v_cache_count); > earlier at 3614 I have what I think your after which is: > uint64_t available_memory = ptoa((uintmax_t)cnt.v_free_count); Alright change this to the above, recompile and re-run your tests. Effectively before this change that apparently still needs to be MFC'd or MFS'd would not allow ZFS to look at or use cnt.v_cache_count. Pretty much to sum it up "available mem = cache + free" This possibly could cause what your seeing but there might be other changes still yet TBD. Ill look into what else has changed from RELEASE -> STABLE. Also do you check out your sources with svn(1) or csup(1) ? Regards, -- jhell,v
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C842905.2080602>