From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 3 22:28:06 2011 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 58EA81065673 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:28:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivoras@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F718FC08 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggeq3 with SMTP id q3so654834gge.13 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gVkJJPPKgNougPa7S8dtpE7KqbO3/fNbSZ8+AWiNn5A=; b=TJinu3zY+yt8BodtfdksRaamv5sIg6wg2rUtcdiOulvQLBbL2tNxwc1eHsz5SJi3TB ZUjshInyWjqk9DtkA/xuhH0pj/Kizejr36m/EPnoou/+kyP8OguMlsai3HMcGt+sSKEM Qz000cB8oousc1zyImVW3kmTZSU45UOxd/ExM= Received: by 10.100.233.21 with SMTP id f21mr454471anh.44.1317680885082; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ivoras@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.43.9 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20111002020231.GA70864@icarus.home.lan> From: Ivan Voras Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:27:25 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wLHWkyxHV_QSN-dLrRDr8Q1drAs Message-ID: To: Xin LI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental? 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: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:28:06 -0000 On 4 October 2011 00:13, Xin LI wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote: > [...] >> Try reducing the swap size to less than the RAM size. No "configuration >> issue", try with some RAM + swap that should fit all. > > But it's not ZFS+tmpfs specific, it can happen anywhere when memory > and swap is not sufficient. =C2=A0Of course tmpfs and ZFS should play mor= e > well together but it's pretty much a "you get what you paid for" > situation IMHO. That would be ok... > One thing I can not yet reproduce, but sounds like a serious issue is > that when system have sufficient RAM available, ZFS reports 0 in free > space... =C2=A0If there is a test case for that then that's definitely > something we need to solve sooner. Yes, this is the point of my original bug report - I thought that this is what you were going to test. Note that on that machine I have both free memory and free swap and still 0 bytes free in tmpfs.