From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 23 12:25:59 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719731065670 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:25:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2108C8FC16 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:25:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from shop.chemikals.org ([75.182.2.94]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20080323120029.CUOU13750.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@shop.chemikals.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:00:29 +0000 Received: from volatile.chemikals.org (root@r74-193-170-223.bssrcmta01.bscyla.by.dh.suddenlink.net [74.193.170.223] (may be forged)) by shop.chemikals.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2NC0S2v084026; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:00:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Received: from localhost (morganw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by volatile.chemikals.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2NC0QUd016775; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:00:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from morganw@chemikals.org) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:00:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Wes Morgan To: Daniel Andersson In-Reply-To: <24adbbc00803220813n5d0e4cd6r2f896e16365c6b36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <24adbbc00803211521t26b271e5wc8e3a27f228e29e4@mail.gmail.com> <47E45891.5010004@enderzone.com> <24adbbc00803220813n5d0e4cd6r2f896e16365c6b36@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (BSF 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A few questions about ZFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:25:59 -0000 On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Daniel Andersson wrote: > Thanks for the reply! Would it still crash if I added two more disks to even > out the load on the disks? Or will it still be a memory issue? > > On 22/03/2008, Ender wrote: >> >> Daniel Andersson wrote: >>> Hiya! >>> >>> I've been thinking about trying out zfs for a while now. But as it is >> still >>> kind of >>> experimental I'm not sure if it'll be worth it. I'm currently running >> FBSD >>> 7.0 i386 >>> but if I go with zfs I'll probably reinstall to amd64. Anyhow, the box >> acts >>> primarily as a fileserver/fw/router. It has only 1gb ram though, which >> seems >>> >>> to be the minimum according to things I've read. If rtorrent uses 900+mb >>> ram, >>> and zfs needs 1gb to run properly, what will happen? crash? Even if I >> got >>> another gb of ram, would it work under heavy writing/reading? I would >>> probably >>> set up a /zfs for it and leave the root, usr, etc partitions to UFS2. >>> >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/muc.lists.freebsd.current/browse_thread/thread/436fa863a6be7f24/a245a67bc6423b62?lnk=raot >>> Doesn't seem promising, I rarely hash stuff though. If it starts >> crashing I >>> would have to. >>> >>> Would I be better of setting up some softraid or vinum? >>> >>> dmesg: >>> http://pastebin.org/24780 >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel Andersson >>> >>> P.S. How do I reply? RE: A few questions about ZFS in the subject? >>> >> >> >> Even with AMD64 and a massive amount of ram (8+G) zfs will still crash >> under heavy load. Experimentation is always worth it, just do not use it >> for anything important. I am using zfs with a 6-disk raidz (2.5tb) pool and another non-replicated pool as root. It is used as a media server/gateway/firewall. I've had no zfs related panics since moving to a core 2 cpu with 4gb ram. I think I've encountered the zfs/nfs deadlock twice, requiring a reboot each time. The load isn't stellar, but I was using it to rip/encode DVDs, download a dozen or so torrents and stream several media files all at the same time. The only instance where there was a hiccup was if I was extracting several large archives simultaneously, the media streamer would hiccup once or twice until the system compensated better for the sudden increase in disk I/O. All in all, with zfs, I feel like the two times I did have to reboot I avoided a lengthy fsck. The ability to scrub the disks and detect data corruption (which has not occurred) as well as the plusses of pooled storage without spending far too much on a raid controller outweigh any potential downsides. Now if only I could find a PCIe SATA controller with 4 or 8 ports that isn't one of those expensive RAIDs (prefer to invest more in disks than controllers).