Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:43:30 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Sean Chittenden <seanc@groupon.com>, Adrian Gschwend <ml-ktk@netlabs.org> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.1 Memory Exhaustion Message-ID: <1436989410.1427298.324703241.421E814B@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <CACfj5vJvAz9StvjTrA1TzfS%2BMhi_qSrOc_qBNHr8qXbiAj81xw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAB2_NwCngPqFH4q-YZk00RO_aVF9JraeSsVX3xS0z5EV3YGa1Q@mail.gmail.com> <55A3A800.5060904@denninger.net> <55A4D5B7.2030603@freebsd.org> <55A4E5AB.8060909@netlabs.org> <CACfj5vJvAz9StvjTrA1TzfS%2BMhi_qSrOc_qBNHr8qXbiAj81xw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015, at 10:10, Sean Chittenden wrote: > I think the reason this is not seen more often is because people > frequently > throw limits on the arc in /boot/loader.conf: > > vfs.zfs.arc_min="18G" > vfs.zfs.arc_max="149G" > > ZFS ARC *should* not require those settings, but does currently for mixed > workloads (i.e. databases) in order to be "stable". By setting fixed > sizes > on the ARC, UMA and ARC are much more cooperative in that they have their > own memory regions to manage so this behavior is not seen as often. > > To be clear, however, it should not be necessary to set parameters like > these in /boot/loader.conf in order to obtain consistent operational > behavior. I'd be curious to know if someone running 10.2 BETA without > patches is able to trigger this behavior or not. There was work done > that > reported helped with this between 10.1 and now. To what extent it > helped, > however, I don't have any advice yet. > I was about to email "I have 12TB at home and 4GB of RAM with a very erratic workload and never run into any issues" and then I looked at /boot/loader.conf and saw vfs.zfs.arc_max="2G" Now I'm too scared to turn it off... :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1436989410.1427298.324703241.421E814B>