> Op maandag 15 juli 2013 schreef Alfred Perlstein (alf...@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
_______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"