From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 15:11:27 2007 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 0307E16A419 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:11:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.rebele@web.de) Received: from fmmailgate01.web.de (fmmailgate01.web.de [217.72.192.221]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE1313C4CC for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:11:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.rebele@web.de) Received: from smtp05.web.de (fmsmtp05.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.4.166]) by fmmailgate01.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31ADEBCA57BB for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:08:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from [194.94.240.61] (helo=[10.100.2.35]) by smtp05.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.108 #208) id 1J3C9O-0006dT-00 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:08:30 +0100 Message-ID: <47629C63.7010204@web.de> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:08:19 +0100 From: Michael Rebele User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: m.rebele@web.de X-Sender: m.rebele@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19GJpJEJ1UEGET1veEhSsoDz4qgtk4FHgXeJWmz BIpsMHjzr8XmVNBlkbf7p0H9QHJYLC8vv90NR4ErYlyHT5HHZG O0jBVG8Rc= Subject: Re: 7.0-Beta 3: zfs makes system reboot X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: m.rebele@web.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:11:27 -0000 Hello, replying my own message is a funny thing ;-) This message has more informational character than it is a error report. > Michael Rebele wrote: > Von: m.rebele@web.de > Gesendet: 03.12.07 15:54:59 > An: freebsd-current@freebsd.org > Betreff: Re: 7.0-Beta 3: zfs makes system reboot > > Alexandre Biancalana wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2007 2:27 PM, Michael Rebele wrote: > >> 4. The applied kernel settings > >> kern.maxvnodes="400000" > >> vm.kmem_size_max="512M" > >> vm.kmem_size="512M" > >> > >> 5. Output from zpool > >> [root@zfs /root]# zpool status > >> pool: tank > >> state: ONLINE > >> scrub: none requested > >> config: > >> > >> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > >> tank ONLINE 0 0 0 > >> ad4s1g ONLINE 0 0 0 > >> > >> errors: No known data errors > >> > >> [kmem_map too small error] > > > > Have you tried this patch > > http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/vm_kern.c.2.patch ? > I've applied the mentioned patch to the Beta3. Now the iozone-Benchmark runs through. Fine - be warned, on my machine it took about 30 hours (a 3GHz DualCore and a 160GB SATA HD w. 10000rpm). After the first successful run on a ZFS since my first try i tried the next step. Three parallel iozone (for your reference, here's again the setup: iozone -R -a -z -b filez-512M.wks -g 4G -f testile) runs on the mentioned machine. Nearly 5 days everything went fine, but then the system made a reboot. Unfortunately there's no log and the reboot happened in the night. Though, i don't really know the reason for this. I guess, the kmem_map error is the cause, because the symptoms are the same as on the BETA3-system before the applied patch. The last output i have from the benchmark, showed that the file size were in the 4GB area with a reclen in the 8192 area (well, short before iozone should finish). The problem is to track down the stuff, as it may took quite long until the error occurs - or lets say it better, even on a quite fast machine, iozone is quite slow. But the problem is not the CPU, it's the HD. Maybe somebody with access to a fast HD-Array can investigate this again. My conclusions to my tests: 1. You should really apply the mentioned patch if you plan to use ZFS on your Box for more than just testing and experimenting (well, ZFS is marked as that, though - you're warned). The memory/kernel parameter tuning recommendations helped me not really. 2. With the applied patch, ZFS seems quite robust for the average use. Maybe, there's a problem with a bigger load under some (rare?) circumstances. 3. The patch should find his way to the 'regular' kernel sources (or is it even in BETA4?). A big thanks to Pawel Jakub Dawidek for his great job. Michael -- Die Erde ist die Irrenanstalt des Universums. Public Key: http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5D0A2BC3CEB 3F472