Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:46:39 -0400 From: Rich <rercola@acm.jhu.edu> To: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS arc sizing (maybe related to kern/145229) Message-ID: <h2u5da0588e1004071146lf09ef89eo217933f75ec7a88b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <z2o5a1151761004071105kb129ca4q7dfd002270d53561@mail.gmail.com> References: <z2o5a1151761004071105kb129ca4q7dfd002270d53561@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A datapoint for you:
Now running 8-STABLE (plus the mbuf leak fix which went in recently),
here's my ARC stats and ARC sysctl settings after the server was up
for about a week (5 days) after that:
ARC Size:
Current Size: 587.49M (arcsize)
Target Size: (Adaptive) 587.63M (c)
Min Size (Hard Limit): 512.00M (arc_min)
Max Size (Hard Limit): 3072.00M (arc_max)
ARC Size Breakdown:
Recently Used Cache Size: 98.28% 577.50M (p)
Frequently Used Cache Size: 1.72% 10.12M (c-p)
ARC Efficiency:
Cache Access Total: 2602789964
Cache Hit Ratio: 96.11% 2501461882
Cache Miss Ratio: 3.89% 101328082
Actual Hit Ratio: 87.65% 2281380527
and
vfs.zfs.arc_meta_limit=1073741824
vfs.zfs.arc_meta_used=548265792
vfs.zfs.arc_min=536870912
vfs.zfs.arc_max=3221225472
So it very clearly limits to near the minimum size, but whether this
is design or accidental behavior, I'm unsure.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?h2u5da0588e1004071146lf09ef89eo217933f75ec7a88b>