From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 7 14:04:47 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 361A516A419; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:04:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B8613C478; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:04:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBFE2089; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:04:37 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: -0.2/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722BE2049; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:04:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5707E84490; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:04:37 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Ivan Voras References: Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:04:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Ivan Voras's message of "Fri\, 04 Jan 2008 12\:42\:28 +0100") Message-ID: <86y7b168ay.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:04:47 -0000 Ivan Voras writes: > As far as I know about the details of implementation and what would it > take to fix the problems, is it safe to assume ZFS will never become > stable during 7.x lifetime? Have you heard of the logical fallacy called "plurium interrogationum"? You may not be familiar with the phrase (which is Latin for "multiple questions"), but it's what you're doing here: asking a question which is impossible to answer truthfully because it is based on an incorrect premise, and to answer the question correctly you must first discuss the premise. It's a favorite Hollywood plot device, because you can have the smart-aleck lawyer interrupt the confused witness and insist on a yes or no answer, forcing the witness to implicitly agree with the premise. I doubt it would work in a real-life court, though, because judges tend to be smart people. But I digress. Your question is based on the premise that ZFS in FreeBSD 7 is unstable. That premise is false. There are issues with auto-tuning of certain parameters, which can cause kmem exhaustion, but they are easily worked around by setting a few tunables. It has worked very well for me (raidz, 1.2 TB pool, 4 GB RAM, ~60 file systems and twice as many snapshots) after I added the following lines to loader.conf: vm.kmem_size=3D"1G" vfs.zfs.arc_min=3D"64M" vfs.zfs.arc_max=3D"512M" DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no