On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM, jhell <jhell_at_dataix.net> wrote: > On 08/27/2010 19:50, Artem Belevich wrote: >> Another "me too" here. >> >> 8-stable/amd64 + v15 (zpool still uses v14) + metaslab + >> abe_stat_rrwlock + A.Gapon's vm_paging_needed() + uma defrag patches. >> >> The box survived few days of pounding on it without any signs of trouble. >> > > I must have missed the uma defrag patches but according to the code Here is the UMA patch I was talking about: http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/hackers/2010-08/msg00188.html > those patches should not have any effect on your implimentation of ZFS > on your system because vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma defaults to off unless you > have manually turned this on or the patch reverts that facility back to > its original form. Hmm. Indeed. Kmem_malloc carves memory allocations directly from kmem. Yet the difference in max ARC size with the patch applied is there. http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/hackers/2010-08/msg00257.html Perhaps reduced UMA fragmentation helps those subsystem that do use UMA (including ZFS which always uses uma for various housekeeping data). --ArtemReceived on Sat Aug 28 2010 - 01:34:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:06 UTC