From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 9 05:31:09 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12FC5C4C for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 05:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF523782 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 05:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so58177364igb.1 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:31:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=B5W0GCcaA767fTH4tLb+ilmcHFP+wkvBeZfU0xLXr58=; b=NNzSExtjx+tF/FAPWikoMLkKszBZu/8tBsCOJCKGT+7wzM/EzCmtY22etKq3GmSP5x v5D1Lg/x/qKUo3/zEEAVr4CVV2LmQVwy4KTjpSmfkEUEysrrshink/uwnv2h5k6SMU/L 9kz1XYDqgE5k8r77GQM31hXoWK0mOxy4Q3B+z9KT4xjnW0SagRjo+pMcfkeZpPNnfk6r F3CdvgllSdbzlAgY9Rz1K4khUSMQPDx6kLD/D3ECvQVjqVJb6ur+mYxLYPrEDSdxMA/M 9iXhK5X/zAoFiiYup1ydeKM5qFW27sk2VQXZfUmH7jQJ0rWQt+GyE/Cbx/r5+Cz9U0dt ih4w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.143.106 with SMTP id sd10mr17271988igb.17.1428557468118; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.51.76 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:31:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:31:08 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD/ZFS on [HEAD] chews up memory From: grarpamp To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 05:31:09 -0000 > RAM amount might matter too. 12GB vs 32GB is a bit of a difference. Allow me to botch hypothetically... We, and I, get that some FS need memory, just like kernel and userspace need memory to function. But to be honest, things should fail or slow gracefully. Why in the world, regardless of directory size, should I ever need to feed ZFS 10GB of RAM? Notice I snuck in 2GB of that 12-32GB for kernels and users own bloat. Yeah ok, I get FFS DIRHASH, if I don't feed it I simply get a performance hit, not a crash. But 12+ efling GB for ZFS and 80-90% free or the system crashes hard? W t F people?!?!?! Where have we gone wrong with this design? Where are the BSD principles??? I know I don't have a lot of time to characterize this RAM issue, and I don't ascribe it to this case, but I say this because we often keep seeing "add more ram" as the first/common fix, well that's not a real BSD solution. Keep on BSD solutions and ZFS and all the rest will continue to be good. Cheers, mates :)