From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 3 11:55:39 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCB13746 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.helenius.fi (mail.helenius.fi [IPv6:2001:67c:164:40::91]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBB12DF9 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.helenius.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.helenius.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB0C8FA7; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:55:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at helenius.fi Received: from mail.helenius.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.helenius.fi (mail.helenius.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7U-ALYeHwihW; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:164:42:edca:7cd0:d3ac:8d5a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:164:42:edca:7cd0:d3ac:8d5a]) (Authenticated sender: pete) by mail.helenius.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C51D68F95; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:55:17 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: l2arc compression leak From: Petri Helenius In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:55:16 +0300 Message-Id: <9E818A41-AEF6-4600-B12B-0539EE521B60@helenius.fi> References: <5AD0B5C0-7C72-46FA-86D3-7AFA8FA1E84E@helenius.fi> To: krad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: developer@open-zfs.org, "" X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:55:39 -0000 Anyone know if this is fixed in the recent ZFS commits? Pete On 17 Jun 2014, at 11:24 , Petri Helenius wrote: >=20 > I wonder when this makes it to HEAD? >=20 > Pete >=20 > On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:04 , krad wrote: >=20 >> thats really a decision for you as your situation is specific to you, = and you get hit with the penalties if anything goes wrong. If its = causing you a major problem in production and the risk/benfit ratio is = worth it you could use it, but I would make sure you do rigorous testing = first. However if you dont have a specific issue, i would hold off until = its in stable at least. >>=20 >>=20 >> On 16 June 2014 07:40, Petri Helenius wrote: >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> Recent FreeBSD 10-STABLE seems to be suffering from the L2ARC memory = leak, eventually hanging on pfault. >>=20 >> Should I apply this patch >> http://lists.open-zfs.org/pipermail/developer/2014-March/000535.html >>=20 >> or wait for integration to SVN? >>=20 >> Pete >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" >>=20 >=20