Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:50:47 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <flqmbo$eac$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4780D289.7020509@FreeBSD.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080104163352.GA42835@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <9bbcef730801040958t36e48c9fjd0fbfabd49b08b97@mail.gmail.com> <200801061051.26817.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <9bbcef730801060458k4bc9f2d6uc3f097d70e087b68@mail.gmail.com> <4780D289.7020509@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Kris Kennaway wrote: > kmem problems are just tuning. They are not indicative of stability > problems in ZFS. I disagree - anything that causes a panic is a stability problem. Panics persist AFTER the tunings (for i386 certainly, and there are unsolved reports about it on amd64 also) and are present even when driving kmem size to the maximum. The tunings *can not solve the problems* currently, they can only delay the time until they appear, which, by Murphy, often means "sometime around midnight at Saturday". See also the possibility of deadlocks in the ZIL, reported by some users. > Please report any further non-kmem panics you experience. I did, once to Pawel and once to the lists. Pawel couldn't help me and nobody responded on the lists. Can you perform a MySQL read-write benchmark on one of the 8-core machines with database on ZFS for about an hour without pause? On a machine with 2 GB (or less) of RAM, preferrably? I've seen problems on i386 but maybe they are also present on amd64. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgNy3ldnAQVacBcgRAqzHAKDfZWQg5+0b7chMA8z3yclmReYs6gCeJ3ir GBVQIzcpbjgFk9JfyTrb1m0= =1aOH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?flqmbo$eac$1>