Kris Kennaway wrote: > No, clearly it is not enough This looks like we're constantly chasing the "right amount". Does it depend so much on CPU and IO speed that there's never a generally sufficient "right amount"? So when CPU and drive speed increase, the new amount will always be some bigger value? >(and you claimed previously to have done > more tuning than this). Where? What else is there except kmem tuning (including KVA_PAGES)? IIRC Pawel said all other suggested tunings don't do much. > I have it set to 600MB on the i386 system with > a 1.5GB KVA. Both were necessary. My point is that the fact that such things are necessary (1.5 GB KVA os a lot on i386) mean that there are serious problems which aren't getting fixed since ZFS was imported (that's over 6 months ago). I see you've added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide; can you please add the values that work for you to it (especially for KVA_PAGES since the exact kernel configuration line is never spelled out in the document; and say for which hardware are the values known to work)? > ZFS already tells you up front that it's experimental code and likely to > have problems. I know it's experimental, but requiring users to perform so much tuning just to get it work without crashing will mean it will get a bad reputation early on. Do you (or anyone) know what are the reasons for not having vm.kmem_size to 512 MB by default? Better yet, why not increase both vm.kmem_size and KVA_PAGES to (the equivalent of) 640 MB or 768 MB by default for 7.0? >Users of 7.0-RELEASE should not have unrealistic > expectations. As I've said at the first post of this thread: I'm interested in if it's ever going to be stable for 7.x.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC