Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:03:32 +0000 From: Darren Reed <darrenr@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Rock <freebsd@deadcafe.de> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS committed to the FreeBSD base. Message-ID: <20070524100332.GC52149@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <46549809.7040600@deadcafe.de> References: <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> <20070523181903.GA60674@xor.obsecurity.org> <46549809.7040600@deadcafe.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:37:45PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote: > Kris Kennaway schrieb: > > >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. > > Yes, I can confirm that. > > I'm running 32-bit Solaris 10 with 2GB RAM and occasionally even after only > moderate activity on ZFS the machine would hang. ping etc. would still be > answered but every filesystem activity would hang. I've seen this too when using ZFS on 32bit x86 hardware. It's a filesystem designed with the future in mind rather than the past, who can blame them for architecting it to work best on 64bit hardware (not like 64bit amd chips or systems are outrageously $$). Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070524100332.GC52149>