From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 29 21:43:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4C41065674 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberto@keltia.net) Received: from keltia.net (fbx.keltia.net [82.230.37.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FABA8FC0C for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lonrach.keltia.net (lonrach.keltia.net [193.56.58.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: roberto) by keltia.net (Postfix/TLS) with ESMTPSA id 25CA87528 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:23:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:23:46 +0200 From: Ollivier Robert To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100429212345.GA2215@lonrach.keltia.net> References: <4BD8F7FA.2080103@jrv.org> <20100429145334.GB62822@roberto-al.eurocontrol.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: MacOS X / MBP 4,1 - FreeBSD 8.0 / T3500-E5520 Nehalem User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (keltia.net); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:23:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:29:26 +0000 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 21:43:34 -0000 According to Tom Evans: > 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 don't have the citation handy but it was on the opensolaris forum in the zfs community. I understand that this is FreeBSD we're speaking about but the figure comes from the fact that ZFS (and particularly the ARC cache) does take a lot of memory. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr In memoriam to Ondine : http://ondine.keltia.net/