On 28/08/2013 05:58, Robert Burmeister wrote: > > On 8/27/2013 9:40 AM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote: >> On 27 August 2013 16:41, Robert Burmeister >> <robert.burmeis...@utoledo.edu> wrote: >>> I have been experimenting with dirhash settings, and have scoured the >>> internet for other peoples' experience with it. >>> (I found the performance improvement in compiling has forestalled the >>> need to add an SSD drive. ;-) >>> >>> I believe that increasing the following values by 10 would benefit >>> most FreeBSD users without disadvantage. >>> >>> vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem: 2097152 to 20971520 >>> >>> vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage: 5 to 50 or 60 >> vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem is further autotuned based on available >> physical memory. >> See r214359 for details. >> > [Spock Eyebrow of Thought] > > I'm running FreeBSD i386 9.2, that allows a max of 4 Gigs of RAM.
To what value does the algorithm tune in your case? On my 16 GB machine, it's ~~ 25 MB: vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem: 26968064 > I think the algorithm is still overly conservative for 32 bit systems, > which are more likely to be using UFS. > > As 64 bit platforms tend to have more RAM and use ZFS, > is the same tuning algorithm appropriate for both? The policy is to use fractions of the installed RAM (though in a roundabout way), so it should scale reasonably well to both systems with large and small memories. I'll bump vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage to 60, it's worth it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
