From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 6 16:22:09 2008 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 D62C716A421 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:22:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E09113C448; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:22:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4781002F.5020708@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:22:07 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maciej Suszko References: <20080104163352.GA42835@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <9bbcef730801040958t36e48c9fjd0fbfabd49b08b97@mail.gmail.com> <200801061051.26817.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <9bbcef730801060458k4bc9f2d6uc3f097d70e087b68@mail.gmail.com> <4780D289.7020509@FreeBSD.org> <20080106144627.a91a62c1.maciej@suszko.eu> <4780F7C0.5010101@FreeBSD.org> <20080106170544.93f7ab1b.maciej@suszko.eu> In-Reply-To: <20080106170544.93f7ab1b.maciej@suszko.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? 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: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:22:09 -0000 Maciej Suszko wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Maciej Suszko wrote: >>> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>> Ivan Voras wrote: >>>>> On 06/01/2008, Peter Schuller wrote: >>>>>>> This number is not so large. It seems to be easily crashed by >>>>>>> rsync, for example (speaking from my own experience, and also >>>>>>> some of my colleagues). >>>>>> I can definitely say this is not *generally* true, as I do a lot >>>>>> of rsyncing/rdiff-backup:ing and similar stuff (with many files / >>>>>> large files) on ZFS without any stability issues. Problems for me >>>>>> have been limited to 32bit and the memory exhaustion issue rather >>>>>> than "hard" issues. >>>>> It's not generally true since kmem problems with rsync are often >>>>> hard to repeat - I have them on one machine, but not on another, >>>>> similar machine. This nonrepeatability is also a part of the >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>>>> But perhaps that's all you are referring to. >>>>> Mostly. I did have a ZFS crash with rsync that wasn't kmem >>>>> related, but only once. >>>> kmem problems are just tuning. They are not indicative of >>>> stability problems in ZFS. Please report any further non-kmem >>>> panics you experience. >>> I agree that ZFS is pretty stable itself. I use 32bit machine with >>> 2gigs od RAM and all hang cases are kmem related, but the fact is >>> that I haven't found any way of tuning to stop it crashing. When I >>> do some rsyncing, especially beetwen different pools - it hangs or >>> reboots - mostly on bigger files (i.e. rsyncing ports tree with >>> distfiles). At the moment I patched the kernel with >>> vm_kern.c.2.patch and it just stopped crashing, but from time to >>> time the machine looks like beeing freezed for a second or two, >>> after that it works normally. Have you got any similar experience? >> That is expected. That patch makes the system do more work to try >> and reclaim memory when it would previously have panicked from lack >> of memory. However, the same advice applies as to Ivan: you should >> try and tune the memory parameters better to avoid this last-ditch >> sitation. > > As Ivan said - tuning kmem_size only delay the moment system crash, > earlier or after it happens - that's my point of view. So the same question applies: exactly what steps did you take to tune the memory parameters? Extracting this information from you guys shouldn't be as hard as this :) Kris