From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 6 14:13:17 2008 Return-Path: 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 EE5E716A417 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:13:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maciej@suszko.eu) Received: from 42.mail-out.ovh.net (42.mail-out.ovh.net [213.251.189.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6531913C46E for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:13:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maciej@suszko.eu) Received: (qmail 10693 invoked by uid 503); 6 Jan 2008 13:46:42 -0000 Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail246.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 42.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2008 13:46:42 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2008 13:46:10 -0000 Received: from 217-153-241-141.zab.nat.hnet.pl (HELO arsenic) (maciej@suszko.eu@217.153.241.141) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2008 13:46:08 -0000 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:46:27 +0100 From: Maciej Suszko To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20080106144627.a91a62c1.maciej@suszko.eu> In-Reply-To: <4780D289.7020509@FreeBSD.org> References: <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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.3; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Ovh-Remote: 217.153.241.141 (217-153-241-141.zab.nat.hnet.pl) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.505683/N 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:13:18 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: > > On 06/01/2008, Peter Schuller wrote: > >>> This number is not so large. It seems to be easily crashed by > >>> rsync, for example (speaking from my own experience, and also > >>> some of my colleagues). > >> I can definitely say this is not *generally* true, as I do a lot of > >> rsyncing/rdiff-backup:ing and similar stuff (with many files / > >> large files) on ZFS without any stability issues. Problems for me > >> have been limited to 32bit and the memory exhaustion issue rather > >> than "hard" issues. > > > > It's not generally true since kmem problems with rsync are often > > hard to repeat - I have them on one machine, but not on another, > > similar machine. This nonrepeatability is also a part of the > > problem. > > > >> But perhaps that's all you are referring to. > > > > Mostly. I did have a ZFS crash with rsync that wasn't kmem related, > > but only once. > > kmem problems are just tuning. They are not indicative of stability > problems in ZFS. Please report any further non-kmem panics you > experience. I agree that ZFS is pretty stable itself. I use 32bit machine with 2gigs od RAM and all hang cases are kmem related, but the fact is that I haven't found any way of tuning to stop it crashing. When I do some rsyncing, especially beetwen different pools - it hangs or reboots - mostly on bigger files (i.e. rsyncing ports tree with distfiles). At the moment I patched the kernel with vm_kern.c.2.patch and it just stopped crashing, but from time to time the machine looks like beeing freezed for a second or two, after that it works normally. Have you got any similar experience? -- regards, Maciej Suszko.