Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:01:49 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= <askbill@conducive.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS kmem_map too small. Message-ID: <47076B1D.3040600@conducive.net> In-Reply-To: <fe7p1h$1tp$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <20071005000046.GC92272@garage.freebsd.pl> <fe7p1h$1tp$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > >> What I did was to rsync 200 FreeBSD src trees from one directory to >> another on the same ZFS file system. It worked fine. > > It looks like most problems (including mine I sent you before) are when > rsync (and possibly NFS?) are run over the network. How much kernel > memory does a heavily loaded network stack (multiple parallel > connections & TCP streams) consume? Just for the TCP send & receive > buffers I'd guess at least something like 128K*number_of_connections. > > Is this then hinting that ZFS testing is pointing to problems in the new stack? rsync perhaps exonerated if local disk-to-disk doesn't show it. But what of ssh? Does it happen with other-than-ZFS rsync use at comparable load? Or on the older stack - with zfs or other load? Not 'suggesting' - just questioning. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47076B1D.3040600>