zfs + uma
Andriy Gapon
avg at freebsd.org
Sun Sep 19 08:42:07 UTC 2010
on 19/09/2010 11:27 Jeff Roberson said the following:
> I don't like this because even with very large buffers you can still have high
> enough turnover to require per-cpu caching. Kip specifically added UMA support
> to address this issue in zfs. If you have allocations which don't require
> per-cpu caching and are very large why even use UMA?
Good point.
Right now I am running with 4 items/bucket limit for items larger than 32KB.
--
Andriy Gapon
More information about the freebsd-hackers
mailing list