| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Chadwick | Oct 30, 2008 8:31 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Oct 30, 2008 9:07 pm | |
| Jeremy Chadwick | Oct 30, 2008 9:33 pm | |
| Andrew Snow | Oct 30, 2008 9:43 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Oct 30, 2008 9:47 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Oct 30, 2008 9:49 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Oct 30, 2008 9:54 pm | |
| Simun Mikecin | Oct 31, 2008 2:20 am | |
| Simun Mikecin | Oct 31, 2008 4:56 am | |
| Peter Schuller | Nov 2, 2008 7:08 am | |
| Simun Mikecin | Nov 3, 2008 12:31 am | |
| Dieter | Nov 12, 2008 2:57 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 12, 2008 9:46 pm | |
| Jeremy Chadwick | Nov 12, 2008 11:42 pm | |
| Willem Jan Withagen | Nov 13, 2008 12:32 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 13, 2008 3:09 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 13, 2008 5:58 am | |
| Nikolay Denev | Nov 13, 2008 7:05 am | |
| Scott Long | Nov 13, 2008 8:49 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 13, 2008 12:46 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 13, 2008 12:59 pm | |
| Eirik Øverby | Nov 16, 2008 12:26 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 16, 2008 7:15 pm | |
| Matt Simerson | Nov 16, 2008 10:06 pm | |
| Jeremy Chadwick | Nov 16, 2008 11:07 pm | |
| Wes Morgan | Nov 17, 2008 3:26 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 17, 2008 3:42 am | |
| Matt Simerson | Nov 17, 2008 1:04 pm | |
| Matt Simerson | Nov 17, 2008 2:07 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Nov 17, 2008 3:45 pm | |
| Jan Mikkelsen | Dec 2, 2008 2:38 am | |
| Wes Morgan | Dec 2, 2008 4:04 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Jan 7, 2009 4:33 pm | |
| Zaphod Beeblebrox | Jan 7, 2009 11:40 pm | |
| Koen Smits | Jan 7, 2009 11:48 pm | |
| Nikolay Denev | Jan 8, 2009 1:19 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Jan 8, 2009 6:29 pm | |
| Koen Smits | Jan 9, 2009 12:46 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Jan 9, 2009 1:02 am | |
| Koen Smits | Jan 9, 2009 7:57 am | |
| Andrew Snow | Jan 9, 2009 6:38 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Jan 9, 2009 8:58 pm | |
| Danny Carroll | Jan 20, 2009 10:40 pm | |
| Koen Smits | Jan 21, 2009 1:15 am | |
| Danny Carroll | Jan 21, 2009 5:14 am |
| Subject: | Re: Areca vs. ZFS performance testing. | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Danny Carroll (fb...@dannysplace.net) | |
| Date: | Oct 30, 2008 9:07:33 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-fs | |
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I think these sets of tests are good. There are some others I'd like to see, but they'd only be applicable if the 1231-ML has hardware cache. I can mention what those are if the card does have hardware caching.
The card comes standard with 256Mb of cache.
I do have some concern about the size of the eventual array and ZFS' use of system memory. Are there guidelines available that give advice on how much memory a box should have with large ZFS arrays?
The general concept is: "the more RAM the better". However, if you're using RELENG_7, then there's not much point (speaking solely about ZFS) to getting more than maybe 3 or 4GB; you're still limited to a 2GB kmap maximum.
Regarding size of the array vs. memory usage: as long as you tune kmem and ZFS ARC, you shouldn't have much trouble. There have been some key people reporting lately that they run very large ZFS arrays without issue, with proper tuning.
I followed the recommendations here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide
vm.kmem_size="1024M" vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" vfs.zfs.debug=1
And : kern.maxvnodes=400000
I have not added the following because they were listed in the i386 section. (These values were quoted for a machine with 768Mb of ram) vfs.zfs.arc_max="40M" vfs.zfs.vdev.cache.size="5M"
Am I right in assuming these do not apply to amd64? The article was not specific.
Also, just a reminder: do not pick a value of 2048M for kmem_size or kmem_size_max; the machine won't boot/work. You shouldn't go above something like 1536M, although some have tuned slightly above that with success. (You need to remember that there is more to kernel memory allocation than just this, so you don't want to exhaust it all assigning it to kmap. Hope that makes sense...)
It makes sense. I'm using 1024 at the moment, but I've never really looked into what memory is actually being used.
Tuning advice here would be well received :-)
Can an AMD64 kernel make use of memory above 2g?
Only on CURRENT; 7.x cannot, and AFAIK, will never be able to, as the engineering efforts required to fix it are too great.
I look forward to seeing your numbers. Someone here might be able to compile them into some graphs and other whatnots to make things easier for future readers.
Ahhh, well, that will eventually decide my upgrade path when RELENG_8 is released and stable.
Thanks for doing all of this!
No worries, hopefully it will be useful information to future google searches :-P
-D
_______________________________________________ free...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free...@freebsd.org"





