From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan  6 17:43:27 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA76A16A418;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C427713C465;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 17:43:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <47811336.4060605@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:43:18 +0100
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org>	<20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org>	<flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org>	<20080106170452.L105@fledge.watson.org>
	<flr340$mum$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <flr340$mum$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:43:27 -0000

Ivan Voras wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 
>>> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :)
>>
>> My admittedly second-hand understanding is that ZFS shows similarly 
>> gratuitous memory use on both Mac OS X and Solaris.  One advantage 
>> Solaris has is that it runs primarily on expensive 64-bit servers with 
>> lots of memory.  Part of the problem on FreeBSD is that people run ZFS 
>> on sytems with 32-bit CPUs and a lot less memory.  It could be that 
>> ZFS should be enforcing higher minimum hardware requirements to mount 
>> (i.e., refusing to run on systems with 32-bit address spaces or <4gb 
>> of memory and inadequate tuning).
> 
> Solaris nowadays refuses to install on anything without at least 1 GB of 
> memory. I'm all for ZFS refusing to run on inadequatly tuned hardware, 
> but apparently there's no algorithmic way to say what *is* adequately 
> tuned, except for "try X and if it crashes, try Y, repeat as necessary".

What you appear to be still missing is that ZFS also causes memory 
exhaustion panics when run on 32-bit Solaris.  In fact (unless they have 
since fixed it), the opensolaris ZFS code makes *absolutely no attempt* 
to accomodate i386 memory limitations at all.

Kris