Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:00:27 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Chris Forgeron <cforgeron@acsi.ca> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Stephen McKay <mckay@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Constant minor ZFS corruption Message-ID: <20110311150027.153506yognqhzx18@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E014DA6658521@server7.acsi.ca> References: <201103081425.p28EPQtM002115@dungeon.home> <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E014DA66584F0@server7.acsi.ca> <201103091241.p29CfUM1003302@dungeon.home> <BEBC15BA440AB24484C067A3A9D38D7E014DA6658521@server7.acsi.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Chris Forgeron <cforgeron@acsi.ca> (from Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:43:43 -0400): > Oh - and you're AMD64, correct, not i386? I think we (royal we) > should remove support for i385 in ZFS, it has never been stable for > me, and I see a lot of grief about it on the boards. I also think > you need 8 GB of RAM to play seriously. I've had reasonable success > with 4GB and a light load, but any serious file traffic needs 8GB of > breathing room as ZFS gobbles up the RAM in a very aggressive manner. Veto! I have two x86 machines, one with "only" 768 MB RAM. Both of them run with ZFS without problems. The scenario I use them in may not be the scenario you need to provide a machine for, but there are scenarios where ZFS on x86 works. Bye, Alexander. -- BOFH excuse #113: Root nameservers are out of sync http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110311150027.153506yognqhzx18>