Ivan Voras wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
On 21/11/2007, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
Yes, but I had to verify it anyway :)
You haven't verified anything until you look at how much work the system
is doing, before and after.
I have, and it's roughly the same (50 +/- 2 queries/s).
(meaning that I'm not interested in exact statistics here, but in
order-of-magnitude changes, which didn't happen).
OK, let's take a step back here. Did you obtain the lock profiling
trace and verify that you're seeing the same problem as Alexey? Can I
see the trace?
Here it is:
http://ivoras.sharanet.org/stuff/lock_profile.txt
This is without your patch.
There's a lot of ZFS locks in there, but it seems lockmgr:ufs and
lockmgr:zfs have the largest records:
299117621 1474776121 148663 1042821 1414 0 513
440 /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c:2035 (lockmgr:ufs)
117958368 847566147 182093 2676 316728 68
948 374 /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:515 (lockmgr:zfs)
Which is surprising since all the working-set file systems are on ZFS,
only the root and /tmp are on UFS. /tmp also holds sockets for the
databases.
Your reading of the lock profile will be appreciated.
OK, how about with?
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
