Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:31:08 -0400 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD/ZFS on [HEAD] chews up memory Message-ID: <CAD2Ti281beUmrJOJNoxdv6UNGwy372uXc6BHfyD29ndkZVHG8w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAD2Ti2_4S_yPgJdKxfb=_eQq5RezSTAa_M0V-EHf=y60k30RBQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD2Ti2_4S_yPgJdKxfb=_eQq5RezSTAa_M0V-EHf=y60k30RBQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> RAM amount might matter too. 12GB vs 32GB is a bit of a difference. Allow me to botch hypothetically... We, and I, get that some FS need memory, just like kernel and userspace need memory to function. But to be honest, things should fail or slow gracefully. Why in the world, regardless of directory size, should I ever need to feed ZFS 10GB of RAM? Notice I snuck in 2GB of that 12-32GB for kernels and users own bloat. Yeah ok, I get FFS DIRHASH, if I don't feed it I simply get a performance hit, not a crash. But 12+ efling GB for ZFS and 80-90% free or the system crashes hard? W t F people?!?!?! Where have we gone wrong with this design? Where are the BSD principles??? I know I don't have a lot of time to characterize this RAM issue, and I don't ascribe it to this case, but I say this because we often keep seeing "add more ram" as the first/common fix, well that's not a real BSD solution. Keep on BSD solutions and ZFS and all the rest will continue to be good. Cheers, mates :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAD2Ti281beUmrJOJNoxdv6UNGwy372uXc6BHfyD29ndkZVHG8w>