Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:19:04 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS committed to the FreeBSD base. Message-ID: <20070523181903.GA60674@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <f31419$bd8$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <20070410003837.GB8189@nowhere> <20070410011125.GB38535@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070410013034.GC8189@nowhere> <20070410014233.GD8189@nowhere> <4651BD6F.5050301@unsane.co.uk> <20070522083112.GA5136@hub.freebsd.org> <4652B15D.5060505@unsane.co.uk> <20070523085532.GA27542@hub.freebsd.org> <20070523093231.GA29797@xor.obsecurity.org> <f31419$bd8$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:11:52PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >i.e. plain ZFS wants to use 3/4 of the *physical* RAM in the system > >(or all but 1GB). i.e. if you have 16GB in your system then zfs will > >try to use up to 15GB of it for caching leaving only 1GB for > >everything else (kernel + userland). > > > >I would actually be interested to know how Solaris gets away with > >this. It sounds like there must be less of a distinction between > >memory allocated to the kernel and to userland, and the ability for > >memory to flow between these two with some form of backpressure when > >userland wants memory that is currently gobbled by up solaris ZFS. > > Isn't it adequately explained with Sparc being a 64-bit platform? Not entirely, because solaris also runs on i386 (this is what was confusing me). I guess the answer is that ZFS has similar issues on Solaris i386 that it did on FreeBSD i386. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070523181903.GA60674>