From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 15 09:30:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B2C106568B for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from mx71.mail.ru (mx71.mail.ru [194.67.23.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913108FC19 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yalur@mail.ru) Received: from [93.73.134.74] (port=14180 helo=scrupulous.sifter.volia.net) by mx71.mail.ru with asmtp id 1Kq2hX-0007LY-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:29:55 +0400 From: Ruslan Kovtun Organization: Home To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:29:54 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810151229.54582.yalur@mail.ru> X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: OK Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: yalur@mail.ru List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:04 -0000 Thanks, Matt. I decide to correct these errors manually. Now rebuilding is in process. But I am afraid that I have missed something and it can corrupt my data in zfs pool. Lets check. :) __________________________________________ > As I mentioned earlier, you want to sync to -HEAD as of the date of > the patch. Try something like this: > > > $ more /usr/local/etc/cvsup-head > *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org > *default base=/var/db > *default prefix=/usr > *default release=cvs tag=. > *default delete use-rel-suffix > *default date=2008.08.13.00.00.00 > *default compress > src-all > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Ruslan Kovtun wrote: > > I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found > > several > > errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy > > apply these > > changes? > > > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > > zfs_context.h > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > > zfs_context.h > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_ctldir.c > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #26 failed at 1053. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_replay.c > > using Plan A... > > Hunk #18 failed at 766. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_vnops.c using > > Plan A... > > Hunk #82 failed at 3478. > > > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > > zfs_znode.c using > > Plan A... > > Hunk #6 failed at 136. > > Hunk #13 failed at 560. > > Hunk #18 failed at 759. > > Hunk #20 failed at 877. > > Hunk #26 failed at 1336. > > > > Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... > > Hunk #1 failed at 34. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > > >> On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >>> Matt Simerson wrote: > >>>> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves > >>>> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have > >>>> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After > >>>> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head > >>>> with Pawel's latest patch. > >>>> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with > >>>> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only > >>>> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. > >>>> Matt > >>> > >>> I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > >>> few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > >>> Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability > >>> problems? > >>> > >>> Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > >>> > >>> Miroslav Lachman > >> > >> No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just > >> far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my > >> systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8- > >> head > >> was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head > >> with > >> "the patch" applied. > >> > >> Matt > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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" > > > > -- > > ________________ > > Ruslan Kovtun > > mailto: yalur@mail.ru > > mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 > > ICQ: 277696182 > > _______________________________________________ > 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" -- ________________ Ruslan Kovtun mailto: yalur@mail.ru mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 ICQ: 277696182