Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:08:57 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <4780EF09.4090908@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730801060651y489f1f9bw269d0968407dd8fb@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > On 06/01/2008, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> That's an assertion directly contradicted by my experience running a >> heavily loaded 8-core i386 package builder. > > What is the IO profile of this usage? I'd guess that it's "short > bursts of high activity (archive extraction, installing) followed by > long periods of low activity (compiling)". From what I see on the > lists and somewhat from my own experience, the problem appears more > often when the load is more like "constant high r+w activity", > probably with several users (applications) doing the activity in > parallel. This is a high I/O environment including lots of parallel activity. >> Please explain in detail >> the steps you have taken to tune your kernel. > > vm.kmem_size="512M" > vm.kmem_size_max="512M" > > This should be enough for a 2 GB machine that does other things. No, clearly it is not enough (and you claimed previously to have done more tuning than this). I have it set to 600MB on the i386 system with a 1.5GB KVA. Both were necessary. >> Do you have the vm_kern.c >> patch applied? > > I can confirm that while it delays the panics, it doesn't eliminate > them (this also seems to be the conclusion of several users that have > tested it shortly after it's been posted). The fact that it's not > committed is good enough indication that it's not The Answer. It is planned to be committed. Pawel has been away for a while. > (And besides, asking users to apply non-committed patches just to run > their systems normally is bad practice :) I can just imagine the > Release Notes: "if you're using ZFS, you'll have to manually patch the > kernel with this patch:..." :) ZFS already tells you up front that it's experimental code and likely to have problems. Users of 7.0-RELEASE should not have unrealistic expectations. > This close to the -RELEASE, I judge the chances of it being committed are low). Perhaps, but that only applies to 7.0-RELEASE. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4780EF09.4090908>