Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:19:04 +0200
From:      Olivier Smedts <olivier@gid0.org>
To:        Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental?
Message-ID:  <CABzXLYO-gRt6o6wrevEFwwtTneYiShYD9UbK=j0UUUBzVob5jA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGMYy3s7RrP8oWC%2BJYgSG3hU1EXgKmnf%2BWQRiE2CDu4bHuz3UA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAOfDtXMm9K_fbOmvG2gvXxDfKakkgpPt9MLifqDxa4wCibMExg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1110011122030.882@multics.mit.edu> <CADLo83-s_3H8PbbxOPPxbe0m10U0U5JW-feB294dFs%2BQ3iTWvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGMYy3ssi%2BkAuufDTHA1z6u7jRrZwRRkCCkcO94GHNGF9Rku_w@mail.gmail.com> <20111002020231.GA70864@icarus.home.lan> <CAGMYy3sCCxOiVqeP4PVbvxnpcyoyQZoL%2Bw3nY8STYnpUNfj6JQ@mail.gmail.com> <j6aorc$hf0$1@dough.gmane.org> <CAGMYy3tbMWU6JU1%2B%2B5XmzjZTrV1=oAgRaaDE3-=MMT73F_ojQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABzXLYNLhP%2BYFvT5Sw=hKVF6d_Yvmt%2Be_QjH7ghX-2MyzS0wWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGMYy3s7RrP8oWC%2BJYgSG3hU1EXgKmnf%2BWQRiE2CDu4bHuz3UA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/10/4 Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Olivier Smedts <olivier@gid0.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> Try reducing the swap size to less than the RAM size. No "configuration
>> issue", try with some RAM + swap that should fit all.
>
> But it's not ZFS+tmpfs specific, it can happen anywhere when memory
> and swap is not sufficient. =A0Of course tmpfs and ZFS should play more
> well together but it's pretty much a "you get what you paid for"
> situation IMHO.

But there's a problem in this configuration and when memory and swap
are sufficient (swap free, some RAM free). tmpfs size drops to 0
because it does not seem to calculate the free size correctly. If
there is sufficient RAM (some RAM free), sufficient swap (all free)
but less swap than RAM, and wired memory usage is high (ZFS ARC),
tmpfs size drops to 0.

> One thing I can not yet reproduce, but sounds like a serious issue is
> that when system have sufficient RAM available, ZFS reports 0 in free
> space... =A0If there is a test case for that then that's definitely
> something we need to solve sooner.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/
> FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
>

--=20
Olivier Smedts=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 _
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
 =A0 ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
e-mail: olivier@gid0.org=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - against HTML email & vCards=A0 X
www: http://www.gid0.org=A0 =A0 - against proprietary attachments / \

=A0 "Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde :
=A0 ceux qui comprennent le binaire,
=A0 et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas."



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABzXLYO-gRt6o6wrevEFwwtTneYiShYD9UbK=j0UUUBzVob5jA>