Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:04:20 -0700 From: Steven Schlansker <stevenschlansker@berkeley.edu> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SO]HO Software RAID5 server: which implementation should I choice? Message-ID: <480CF344.8020906@berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <480B9373.50603@quip.cz> References: <396418019.20080409104542@serebryakov.spb.ru> <47FCBAFB.9060508@tzim.net> <4956a5e50804191912g52833c35q868827dc2b54e5ae@mail.gmail.com> <480AE7AA.5090204@tzim.net> <480B9373.50603@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > Do you have any stability issues after tuning? What settings you are > using? > I am testing ZFS for a short time with these values: > vm.kmem_size="1024M" > vm.kmem_size_max="1024M" > vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable="1" > kern.maxvnodes="400000" > vfs.zfs.zil_disable="1" > > (on Sun Fire X2100 with 4GB of RAM and FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE amd64) > > It seems to be stable. > > Miroslav Lachman > _________________________ I'm also running ZFS and wanted to share my experiences. It doesn't cope well with low-memory environments, but I've successfully run with 2GB ram and 3TB disk with no problems on both i386 and amd64. amd64 needs a little bit of tuning - increasing kmem and whatnot (well documented, not very difficult/stressful) i386 needs a bit more tuning and a kernel recompile (increase KVA_PAGES) but once you get it working it runs fine. I've heard dire warnings that disabling the zil is a terribly bad idea if you're running anything that tries to ensure data file consistency (like a database and nfs or something) To sum up - tune it and it will work wonders for you. Don't try to run it with minimal RAM though - I've had good luck with 2GB+ (and half or more of that allocated to kernel memory)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?480CF344.8020906>