From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 07:48:27 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDEA106564A for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:48:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from admin@kkip.pl) Received: from mainframe.kkip.pl (kkip.pl [87.105.164.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8504C8FC14 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:48:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from admin@kkip.pl) Received: from admin.admin.lan.kkip.pl ([10.66.3.254]) by mainframe.kkip.pl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L3QkY-0007or-D7; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:48:24 +0100 Message-ID: <492667C8.5010505@kkip.pl> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:48:24 +0100 From: Bartosz Stec User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: martinko References: <20081109174303.GA5146@ourbrains.org> <20081109184349.GG51239@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4920D879.3070806@jrv.org> <20081117050441.GA16855@ourbrains.org> <20081118175210.GA3753@hyperion.scode.org> <20081119001742.GA21835@ourbrains.org> <49235D86.4050106@modulus.org> <86bpwcp1d8.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4923D460.5020900@kkip.pl> <4923E977.8030107@kkip.pl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-User: admin@kkip.pl X-Authenticator: plain X-Sender-Verify: SUCCEEDED (sender exists & accepts mail) X-Spam-Score: -8.9 X-Spam-Score-Int: -88 X-Exim-Version: 4.69 (build at 01-Nov-2008 10:39:57) X-Date: 2008-11-21 08:48:24 X-Connected-IP: 10.66.3.254:1124 X-Message-Linecount: 67 X-Body-Linecount: 53 X-Message-Size: 2720 X-Body-Size: 1795 X-Received-Count: 1 X-Recipient-Count: 2 X-Local-Recipient-Count: 2 X-Local-Recipient-Defer-Count: 0 X-Local-Recipient-Fail-Count: 0 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will XFS be adopted X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:48:27 -0000 martinko pisze: > Bartosz Stec wrote: >>> >> Well it's not simple indeed. I use ZFS on my home (not critical) box >> (RAIDZ1). After 4 weeks uptime with varied workload I assumed it's >> stable. Unfortunately ZFS crashed next week ;) >> > > How did it crash ? Just the system went down or did you lose any data ? > > I'm planning to build new home server and put all my valuable data on > ZFS but after reading all the mailing lists I'm not so sure about it. :( > > M. I didn't loose any data , and system was up (ping and packet filter did still working), but filesystem was unaccesible so any kind of process which need hdd acces didn't work correctly (like ssh shell or mail server). Hard reboot was one and only solution ;) Feel free to test ZFS for yourself. Good tuning should made it stable enough for you. You also shouldn't worry for your data, ZFS problems are mainly related to kernel memory exhaustion, not a data corruption (Backups however are always recomended before tasks like this). Check the ZFS tuning guide http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide and good luck. My home system is i386 with 1,5GB of memory and tuned with: KERNEL: options KVA_PAGES=512 loader.conf: vm.kmem_size="1024M" vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" It's a very simple tuning, just for tests. My system probably needs ARC settings or vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable=1 to be (more) stable. I'll do more tests, but you probably should do your own - there's no one good tuning solution for every system configuration. Just search this list - there's a lot of examples and hints. Jeremy Chadwick explained a lot of those settings too. -- Bartosz Stec AUXILIA Spółka z o.o. ul. Wałbrzyska 43/2 52-314 Wrocław tel. (71) 79 99 760 w. 69 GSM: 662171775 E-Mail: admin@kkip.pl