Re: [developer] Input on refreservation=auto

> On Mar 15, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Richard Elling > > > wrote: > > >> On Mar 15, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Mike Gerdts >

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] Print stats since boot for first line (#581)

@ahrens Sorry, I thought he was talking to whoever was going to merge the change. I've added the comment. Please let me know if I need to do something else. @prakashsurya Please use the @ syntax when you are addressing someone specific. Different projects have different policies for merging

[developer] [openzfs/openzfs] 9286 want refreservation=auto (#592)

Man page changes in a more readable format: [zfs.1m.orig.txt](https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/files/1820818/zfs.1m.orig.txt) [zfs.1m.new.txt](https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/files/1820817/zfs.1m.new.txt) [zfs.1m.diff.txt](https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/files/1820816/zfs.1m.diff.txt)

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] Print stats since boot for first line (#581)

@Pascal666 pushed 1 commit. 0f63415 Add comment so snap_stats doesn't get removed if l2arc check gets changed -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub:

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] arc_loan_compressed_buf() can increment arc_loaned_bytes by the wrong value (#558)

@allanjude Could you file an illumos bug for this? The content can be the same as your PR description. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/558#issuecomment-373845433

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] Print stats since boot for first line (#581)

@Pascal666 could you take a look at Prakash's review and add the comment he requested? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/581#issuecomment-373844521

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9237 "zpool add" fails for very large pools (#582)

This looks good to go once we confirm that the tests pass. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/582#issuecomment-373844114 --

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9255 obsolete_counts feature should be documented in zpool-features.5… (#584)

ahrens commented on this pull request. > @@ -466,6 +466,29 @@ subcommand in \fBzfs\fR(1M). This feature becomes \fBactive\fR when the "zpool remove" command is used on a top-level vdev, and will never return to being \fBenabled\fR. +.RE +.sp +.ne 2 +.na +\fB\fBmooch_byteswap\fR\fR this

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9280 Assertion failure while running removal_with_ganging test with 4… (#588)

Let's RTI this once we have a passing test run. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/588#issuecomment-373843592 -- openzfs:

[developer] review: 9286 want refreservation=auto

Hi all, Can I get a review of: http://cr.illumos.org/~webrev/mgerdts/9286/ Thanks in advance, Mike -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/T925e34e562b3b6c4-M03aded0469dabdd6c1f0215e Delivery

Re: [developer] Input on refreservation=auto

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Mike Gerdts > wrote: > >> Frankly, I have some concerns about these numbers from before the >> snapshot (same output as first set above, just trimmed) >> >> #

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9290 device removal reduces redundancy of mirrors (#591)

@allanjude @dweeezil Thanks for looking at the previous iteration of this. The new and improved fix is much more comprehensive but the code is almost entirely different. Could I ask that you take a look at this too? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9284 arc_reclaim_thread has 2 jobs (#590)

Thanks @danmcd. I made one more change as a result of internal code review - rename arc_dead to arc_initialized (and reverse its sense). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [developer] Input on refreservation=auto

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Richard Elling < > richard.ell...@richardelling.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mar 15, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM,

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9284 arc_reclaim_thread has 2 jobs (#590)

danmcd approved this pull request. Thank you. Please make sure you document your tests during RTI, especially noting if how we don't regress what 9018 fixed. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9284 arc_reclaim_thread has 2 jobs (#590)

@ahrens pushed 1 commit. 47aef3c comments -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/590/files/977e23842d485d4c9e96ecfcfbd0eb851425596a..47aef3ca9475c131c813c62c15780d237733f0e0

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9284 arc_reclaim_thread has 2 jobs (#590)

ahrens commented on this pull request. -/* number of milliseconds before attempting a kmem-cache-reap */ -static int arc_kmem_cache_reap_retry_ms = 1000; +/* + * Minimum time between calls to arc_kmem_reap_now(). Note that this will Thanks. Fixed this and another instance of

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9284 arc_reclaim_thread has 2 jobs (#590)

danmcd requested changes on this pull request. -/* number of milliseconds before attempting a kmem-cache-reap */ -static int arc_kmem_cache_reap_retry_ms = 1000; +/* + * Minimum time between calls to arc_kmem_reap_now(). Note that this will s/now/soon/ > @@ -284,10 +285,11 @@