zfs + uma

[Andriy Gapon]

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