Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:00:51 +0700 From: OutBackdingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS patches. Message-ID: <1217250051.6657.0.camel@dingo-laptop> In-Reply-To: <20080728125711.GH2953@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20080727125413.GG1345@garage.freebsd.pl> <200807272034.01290.max@love2party.net> <20080728083303.GD2953@garage.freebsd.pl> <200807281454.36892.max@love2party.net> <20080728125711.GH2953@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So are we saying that i386 with a default kmem of 512MB has gotten psuedo stable with some load? On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 14:57 +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 02:54:36PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > > On Monday 28 July 2008 10:33:03 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > Yes, it should fix most if not all 'kmem_map too small' panics, at least > > > from what I tried. Tunning kmem_size is still needed to get better > > > performance. > > > > With the i386 default settings it was not too hard to get the attached panic. > > Some cpdup and rm cycles of src and ports to a single disk zfs pool. With > > 512M I haven't been able to kill it, yet. > > I was probably too optimistic. The default kmem_size is probably just > too low. I'm quite sure it would be too low even for Solaris. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1217250051.6657.0.camel>