Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:31 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kmem_map too small: 3832475648 total allocated Message-ID: <E79134A9-2174-4905-85A6-ADAEC0EA7D66@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <n2m2e027be01004290844k51dd6060q77375e894ff4efc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4BD8F7FA.2080103@jrv.org> <20100429145334.GB62822@roberto-al.eurocontrol.fr> <n2m2e027be01004290844k51dd6060q77375e894ff4efc4@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ollivier Robert > <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> wrote: >> According to James R. Van Artsdalen: >>> system is a Core i7 975 (3.33 GHz x 4 cores 3x threads per core) with 12 >>> GB of RAM, a 2x2TB ZFS boot pool and a second (idle) pool of 16x2TB. >> >>> panic: kmem_malloc(131072): kmem_map too small: 3832475648 total allocated >> >> Apart from the fact that you must at least set vm.kmem_size to something like 2x your RAM, one rule of thumb I've seen discussed for ZFS is that you will need approximatively 1 GB of RAM per TB of data so you may be a bit short here to get optimal perfs. >> > > Citation needed? I have a file server running amd64 8-STABLE with 4GB > of RAM, 6 x 1.5 TB drives in raidz, and have never had any problems > with memory usage. Are you saying that after my next update, adding > another 6 x 1.5 TB drives, it will start being flaky and/or panicing > with kmem_map too small errors? > I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely absurd that any filesystem has to wire down 2GB of RAM, and that the solution to panics is buy more RAM. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E79134A9-2174-4905-85A6-ADAEC0EA7D66>