Dumb me, forgot do redirect to the list. Sorry for that.
Tulio G. Silva
Original Message
Subject:Re: [RFC] Bumping ufs.dirhash_maxmem to a larger value?
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:08:49 -0300
From: Tulio Guimarães da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Xin LI &
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Xin LI wrote:
[Bcc'ed to -developers@, so this can be discussed in a public list]
Hi,
It seems that vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem is set to 2MB. I think this value
is slightly too small for modern machines:
My proposal is to increase the default dirhash_maxmem value to at least
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 02:51:29AM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
...
> My proposal is to increase the default dirhash_maxmem value to at least
> 32MB or 64MB. Any objections?
>
> Cons for this, discussed in -developer:
> - dirhash does not implements automatical mechanism to reduce memory
>usage in r
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 02:51:29AM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> My proposal is to increase the default dirhash_maxmem value to at least
> 32MB or 64MB. Any objections?
I think autotuning the value on boot might be a good idea, providing
that there's reasonable evidence that the existing value is too
sm
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:57:50PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote:
[snip]
> On the other hand, I've got several firewall boxes with only 128MB, and
> it's not reasonable to simply dedicate up to 64MB (half!) to dirhash
> without paying more attention to the amount of physical memory that is
> actuall
Xin LI wrote:
It seems that vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem is set to 2MB. I think this value
is slightly too small for modern machines:
[ ... ]
My proposal is to increase the default dirhash_maxmem value to at least
32MB or 64MB. Any objections?
You are undoubtedly right that allocating only 2MB fo
[Bcc'ed to -developers@, so this can be discussed in a public list]
Hi,
It seems that vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem is set to 2MB. I think this value
is slightly too small for modern machines:
- There are many applications that relies on small files. CVS, maildir,
etc. For these applications a ty
