status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2

[Outback Dingo]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andre Oppermann <andre at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 19.08.2013 18:09, Outback Dingo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred at ixsystems.com
>> <mailto:alfred at ixsystems.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Performance is bad for large memory requirements period.
>>
>>     Vnodes and mbufs on a machine with 24gb ram is limited to the same
>> amount as a machine with less
>>     than 4GB ram.
>>
>>     This was fixed in head but not merged back in time.
>>
>>
>> is there a patch set i can backport on my own, do we know what
>> revision(s) are required? Ive got
>> boxes with
>> 128GB and 10Gbe Intel....... so im willing to do some work......
>>
>
> I have committed it to 9-stable this morning with r254515.  No backporting
> necessary.
>
>
Okay so wait, your saying the autotune commit this morning resolves Alfreds
claims of abysmal
performance in general, or is there other additional fixes in head aside
from the autotune hes mentioning


> --
> Andre
>
>      This results in poor out of the box performance on 10gige and servers
>> with high vnode requirements.
>>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>     On Aug 19, 2013, at 7:30 AM, Outback Dingo <outbackdingo at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:outbackdingo at gmail.com**>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alfred Perlstein <
>>> alfred at ixsystems.com
>>>     <mailto:alfred at ixsystems.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Aug 19, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Andre Oppermann <andre at freebsd.org
>>>         <mailto:andre at freebsd.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         > On 16.08.2013 10:29, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>>         >> On 16.08.2013 08:32, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>         >>> Andre, I'm kind of bummed out this didn't make it into 9.2,
>>> I'm wondering can I commit
>>>         this to
>>>         >>> 9-stable now?  (or is it already in?)
>>>         >>
>>>         >> It didn't make it because there was only sparse feedback
>>> after the
>>>         >> call for testers.  There were a couple of replies that it is
>>> being
>>>         >> tested but no statements either way if it was good or not.
>>>  Hence
>>>         >> I erred on the side of caution and refrained from committing
>>> it.
>>>         >
>>>         > Revisiting the history of this after vacation absence actually
>>> shows
>>>         > that we straddled the release code freeze deadline and you had
>>> provided
>>>         > good testing feedback.  However the MFC got rejected by RE on
>>> the fear
>>>         > of introducing unknown regressions into the release process.
>>>         >
>>>         >>> Would you do the honors?
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Yes, will do later today.
>>>         >
>>>         > Committed to stable/9 as r254515.
>>>         >
>>>         > Let me know if there are any issues.
>>>
>>>         Thanks Andre.
>>>
>>>          Maybe we can do a point release/patch release with this in a
>>> few weeks for 9.2.1 or 9.2p1
>>>         because 9.2 out of the box performance is abysmal not only in
>>> networking but also disk as
>>>         maxvnodes is clipped way too small even with plenty of ram.
>>>
>>>
>>>     So your saying, 9.2-RELEASE performance suffers degradation against
>>> say 9.1 ?? are you
>>>     referring to with this patch enabled? or just in general 9.2-RELEASE
>>>
>>>         >
>>>         > --
>>>         > Andre
>>>         >
>>>         ______________________________**_________________
>>>         freebsd-stable at freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-stable@**freebsd.org<freebsd-stable at freebsd.org>>
>>> mailing list
>>>
>>>         http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**stable<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>
>>>         To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@**
>>> freebsd.org <freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>
>>>         <mailto:freebsd-stable-**unsubscribe at freebsd.org<freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>
>>> >"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>