zfs + uma
Robert N. M. Watson
rwatson at freebsd.org
Sun Sep 19 11:42:35 UTC 2010
On 19 Sep 2010, at 09:42, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> 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.
If allocate turnover is low, I'd think that malloc(9) would do better here. How many allocs/frees per second are there in peak operation?
Robert
More information about the freebsd-hackers
mailing list