Aw: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2

[Pascal Drecker]

   > Op maandag 15 juli 2013 schreef Alfred Perlstein
   (alfred at ixsystems.com) het
   > volgende:
   >
   >> On 7/15/13 7:13 AM, Glen Barber wrote:
   >>>
   >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:48:40AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
   >>>
   >>>> On 7/15/13 5:44 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
   >>>>
   >>>>> On 15.07.2013 08:38, Andre Oppermann wrote:
   >>>>>
   >>>>>> On 13.07.2013 09:47, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
   >>>>>>
   >>>>>>> Andre, we have a number of people running this patch in the
   >>>>>>> following configurations:
   >>>>>>>
   >>>>>>> 6-8GB ram + 10gigE ethernet using iozone over NFS.
   >>>>>>>
   >>>>>> As you haven't seen any problems yet I've asked RE to green
   light
   >>>>>> the MFC.
   >>>>>>
   >>>>> RE has rejected the MFC out of fears for unexpected regressions.
   >>>>>
   >>>>> That is unfortunate. I guess re@ doesn't understand that FreeBSD
   >>>> 9.2 will be unusable out of the box for doing 10gigE for more than
   a
   >>>> few microseconds.
   >>>>
   >>>> Can we not just do my original patch that has the check for 64bit
   >>>> pointers before unscaling maxusers? That would be dirt simple and
   >>>> just work with minimal risk.
   >>>>
   >>>> IMHO, this is considered a new feature, and not a critical bug
   fix. re@
   >>> asked from the start of the code slush to avoid new features, and
   at
   >>> this point, it is too late. It is not worth introducing possible
   >>> regressions, which will only delay the 9.2-RELEASE.
   >>>
   >>> Glen
   >>>
   >>> OK, then we need a release notes telling people a sane value for
   >> nmbclusters and friends so that they know how to make 10gigE work.
   >>
   >> I'll poll my team for a value if someone else has one, that would be
   even
   >> better.
   >>
   >> --
   >> Alfred Perlstein
   >> VP Software Engineering, iXsystems
   >
   >
   >Is there a possibility that a separate unofficial patch set could be
   >released for people who want the autotuning but do not want to run 9
   >stable after 9.2 is released.
   >I would like the autotuning, but i am a little reluctent to use other
   >stable stuff i will get when tracking stable.
   >
   >Regards
   >Johan

   Hi,

   I think that's a good point.

   In our company, it´s not allowed to use the stable tree for any
   production system. Little and useful patches are still allowed.

   Having a central point with a description of each patch it would be
   much easier to update the release version with the needed patches.

   Perhaps, each patch could also have a comment section and a state
   (experimental, almost stable, stable ...) or a counter for successfully
   and unsuccessfully deployments.

   Any objections?

   Regards,
   Pascal