> >> I believe it's time to up these values to something that's in line with higher speed > >> local networks, such as 10G. Perhaps it's time to move these to 2MB instead of 256K. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > This never happened, did it? Was there a reason? > > > > I went back and looked at the mail thread. I didn't see any strong objections > so I think you should commit this for 9.x. > > np_at_ did point out that nmbclusters also lags on modern hardware so consider upping > that at the same time. I thought Bruce's observation, in: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-March/011193.html that: "...there is an mostly-unrelated bufferbloat problem that is purely local. If you have a buffer that is larger than an Ln cache (or about half than), then actually using just a single buffer of that size guarantees thrashing of the Ln cache, so that almost every memory access is an Ln cache miss. Even with current hardware, a buffer of size 256K will thrash most L1 caches and a buffer of size a few MB will thrash most L2 caches." , and his suggestion for some sort of auto-tuning, deserve consideration. Are you going to address this problem (at least the L2 and higher cache thrashing), or give some suggestions for tuning in UPDATING and the relevant manpages? b.Received on Thu Aug 25 2011 - 13:53:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:17 UTC