From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 21:55:27 2008 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 E44E5106569E for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from mx40.mail.ru (mx40.mail.ru [194.67.23.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E76F8FC0A for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from [93.73.134.74] (port=30980 helo=scrupulous.sifter.volia.net) by mx40.mail.ru with asmtp id 1KpVNt-000G0H-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:55:25 +0400 From: Ruslan Kovtun Organization: Home To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:52:14 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810140052.14718.yalur@mail.ru> X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: OK Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yalur@mail.ru List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:55:28 -0000 > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > "the patch" applied. Is this patch already applied after cvsup or I need apply it manualy? ______________________________ > On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Matt Simerson wrote: > >> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >> with Pawel's latest patch. > >> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >> Matt > > > > I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > > few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > > Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability problems? > > > > Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > > > > Miroslav Lachman > > No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8-head > was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with > "the patch" applied. > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- ________________ Ruslan Kovtun mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182