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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sunday 18 May 2008 12:39:11 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: ... >>> and if necessary /etc/rc.d/zfs should start hostid or at least set REQUIRE >>> different and warn ... >> >> 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 more and like to express my gratitude not only to whom made zfs but also and specially to the people who brought it to FBSD - and: thank you guys making it public, this is really a step forward! my zfs related rc files changes(above) made my problems go away and like to share some other experience here as on Jeremie's page explained I had similare problems with zfs but seems I could get around them with (depending on machine's load) setting either to 500, 1000 or 1500k vm.kmem_size* ... but seems main problem on FBSD is zfs recordsize, on ufs like partitions I set it to 64k and I never got panics any more, even with several zpools (as said as dangerous), cache_dirs for squid or mysql partitions might need lower values to get to there new and impressive peaks. this even seems to solve panics when copying large files from nfs|ufs to or 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 (one per user) in order simulating quotas (-/+ 1000 users) with success and completely stable and performance is outstanding under all loads web server, apache/php/mysql, gave up maior stability problems but distributing depending on workload to zpools with different recordsizes and 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 X2/4G, rest is X4 or opterons with 8g or more and I am extremely satisfied and happy with zfs my backups are running twice as fast as on ufs, mirroring in comparims to gmirror is fucking-incredible fast and the zfs snapshot thing deserves an Oscar! ... and the zfs send|receive another so thank you all who had fingers in/on zfs! (sometimes I press reset at my home server only to see how fast it comes up) .. just kidding but true is: thank's again! zfs is thE fs. -- Joćo A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.brhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200806280117.16057.joao>