Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:17:15 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Torfinn Ingolfsen <torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no>, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, Greg Byshenk <freebsd@byshenk.net> Subject: Re: possible zfs bug? lost all pools Message-ID: <200806280117.16057.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20080518153911.GA22300@eos.sc1.parodius.com> References: <200805180956.18211.joao@matik.com.br> <200805181220.33599.joao@matik.com.br> <20080518153911.GA22300@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 18 May 2008 12:39:11 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: =2E.. >>> and if necessary /etc/rc.d/zfs should start hostid or at least set REQU= IRE=20 >>> different and warn =2E.. >> >> I've been in the same boat you are, and I was told the same thing. I've >> documented the situation on my Wiki, and the necessary workarounds. >> >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/Commonly_reported_issue > so I changed the rcorder as you can see in the attached filesile > http://suporte.matik.com.br/jm/zfs.rcfiles.tar.gz i'm coming back on this because I am convicted to zfs each day more and mo= re=20 and like to express my gratitude not only to whom made zfs but also and=20 specially to the people who brought it to FBSD - and: thank you guys making= =20 it public, this is really a step forward! my zfs related rc files changes(above) made my problems go away and like to= =20 share some other experience here as on Jeremie's page explained I had similare problems with zfs but seems I= =20 could get around them with (depending on machine's load) setting either to= =20 500, 1000 or 1500k vm.kmem_size* ... but seems main problem on FBSD is zfs= =20 recordsize, on ufs like partitions I set it to 64k and I never got panics a= ny=20 more, even with several zpools (as said as dangerous), cache_dirs for squid= =20 or mysql partitions might need lower values to get to there new and=20 impressive peaks.=20 this even seems to solve panics when copying large files from nfs|ufs to or= =20 from zfs ... so seems that FBSD do not like recordsize>64k ... I have now a mail server running, for almost two month, with N zfs volumes= =20 (one per user) in order simulating quotas (-/+ 1000 users) with success and= =20 completely stable and performance is outstanding under all loads web server, apache/php/mysql, gave up maior stability problems but=20 distributing depending on workload to zpools with different recordsizes and= =20 never >64k solved my problems and I am appearently panic free now I run almost scsi-only, only my test machines are sata, lowest conf is X2/4= G,=20 rest is X4 or opterons with 8g or more and I am extremely satisfied and hap= py=20 with zfs my backups are running twice as fast as on ufs, mirroring in comparims to=20 gmirror is fucking-incredible fast and the zfs snapshot thing deserves an=20 Oscar! ... and the zfs send|receive another so thank you all who had fingers in/on zfs! (sometimes I press reset at my= =20 home server only to see how fast it comes up) .. just kidding but true is:= =20 thank's again! zfs is thE fs. =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200806280117.16057.joao>