Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:00:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org> To: Daniel Andersson <engywook@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A few questions about ZFS Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.00.0803230647400.16667@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> In-Reply-To: <24adbbc00803220813n5d0e4cd6r2f896e16365c6b36@mail.gmail.com> References: <24adbbc00803211521t26b271e5wc8e3a27f228e29e4@mail.gmail.com> <47E45891.5010004@enderzone.com> <24adbbc00803220813n5d0e4cd6r2f896e16365c6b36@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Daniel Andersson wrote: > Thanks for the reply! Would it still crash if I added two more disks to even > out the load on the disks? Or will it still be a memory issue? > > On 22/03/2008, Ender <ender@enderzone.com> wrote: >> >> Daniel Andersson wrote: >>> Hiya! >>> >>> I've been thinking about trying out zfs for a while now. But as it is >> still >>> kind of >>> experimental I'm not sure if it'll be worth it. I'm currently running >> FBSD >>> 7.0 i386 >>> but if I go with zfs I'll probably reinstall to amd64. Anyhow, the box >> acts >>> primarily as a fileserver/fw/router. It has only 1gb ram though, which >> seems >>> >>> to be the minimum according to things I've read. If rtorrent uses 900+mb >>> ram, >>> and zfs needs 1gb to run properly, what will happen? crash? Even if I >> got >>> another gb of ram, would it work under heavy writing/reading? I would >>> probably >>> set up a /zfs for it and leave the root, usr, etc partitions to UFS2. >>> >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/muc.lists.freebsd.current/browse_thread/thread/436fa863a6be7f24/a245a67bc6423b62?lnk=raot >>> Doesn't seem promising, I rarely hash stuff though. If it starts >> crashing I >>> would have to. >>> >>> Would I be better of setting up some softraid or vinum? >>> >>> dmesg: >>> http://pastebin.org/24780 >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel Andersson >>> >>> P.S. How do I reply? RE: A few questions about ZFS in the subject? >>> >> >> >> Even with AMD64 and a massive amount of ram (8+G) zfs will still crash >> under heavy load. Experimentation is always worth it, just do not use it >> for anything important. I am using zfs with a 6-disk raidz (2.5tb) pool and another non-replicated pool as root. It is used as a media server/gateway/firewall. I've had no zfs related panics since moving to a core 2 cpu with 4gb ram. I think I've encountered the zfs/nfs deadlock twice, requiring a reboot each time. The load isn't stellar, but I was using it to rip/encode DVDs, download a dozen or so torrents and stream several media files all at the same time. The only instance where there was a hiccup was if I was extracting several large archives simultaneously, the media streamer would hiccup once or twice until the system compensated better for the sudden increase in disk I/O. All in all, with zfs, I feel like the two times I did have to reboot I avoided a lengthy fsck. The ability to scrub the disks and detect data corruption (which has not occurred) as well as the plusses of pooled storage without spending far too much on a raid controller outweigh any potential downsides. Now if only I could find a PCIe SATA controller with 4 or 8 ports that isn't one of those expensive RAIDs (prefer to invest more in disks than controllers).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.00.0803230647400.16667>