zfs + uma

[Robert N. M. Watson]

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