Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:45:01 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <flr0ie$euj$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4780EF09.4090908@FreeBSD.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080104163352.GA42835@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <9bbcef730801040958t36e48c9fjd0fbfabd49b08b97@mail.gmail.com> <200801061051.26817.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <9bbcef730801060458k4bc9f2d6uc3f097d70e087b68@mail.gmail.com> <4780D289.7020509@FreeBSD.org> <flqmbo$eac$1@ger.gmane.org> <4780E546.9050303@FreeBSD.org> <9bbcef730801060651y489f1f9bw269d0968407dd8fb@mail.gmail.com> <4780EF09.4090908@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Kris Kennaway wrote: > No, clearly it is not enough This looks like we're constantly chasing the "right amount". Does it depend so much on CPU and IO speed that there's never a generally sufficient "right amount"? So when CPU and drive speed increase, the new amount will always be some bigger value? >(and you claimed previously to have done > more tuning than this). Where? What else is there except kmem tuning (including KVA_PAGES)? IIRC Pawel said all other suggested tunings don't do much. > I have it set to 600MB on the i386 system with > a 1.5GB KVA. Both were necessary. My point is that the fact that such things are necessary (1.5 GB KVA os a lot on i386) mean that there are serious problems which aren't getting fixed since ZFS was imported (that's over 6 months ago). I see you've added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide; can you please add the values that work for you to it (especially for KVA_PAGES since the exact kernel configuration line is never spelled out in the document; and say for which hardware are the values known to work)? > ZFS already tells you up front that it's experimental code and likely to > have problems. I know it's experimental, but requiring users to perform so much tuning just to get it work without crashing will mean it will get a bad reputation early on. Do you (or anyone) know what are the reasons for not having vm.kmem_size to 512 MB by default? Better yet, why not increase both vm.kmem_size and KVA_PAGES to (the equivalent of) 640 MB or 768 MB by default for 7.0? >Users of 7.0-RELEASE should not have unrealistic > expectations. As I've said at the first post of this thread: I'm interested in if it's ever going to be stable for 7.x. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgQWNldnAQVacBcgRAhigAKDK9bFXJy5Y6nLyyk7Xb98iA57cwQCgrTRz as4xA3tKTpL2jXpYtGIKDuI= =dzLD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?flr0ie$euj$1>