From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 29 16:56:35 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284391065670 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:56:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1708FC14 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3TGuVKM016004; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:31 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:31 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4BD8F7FA.2080103@jrv.org> <20100429145334.GB62822@roberto-al.eurocontrol.fr> To: Tom Evans X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Ollivier Robert , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kmem_map too small: 3832475648 total allocated X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:56:35 -0000 On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ollivier Robert > 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. >>=20 >>> panic: kmem_malloc(131072): kmem_map too small: 3832475648 total = allocated >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >=20 > 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? >=20 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