From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 21:21:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68CA1065689 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com (mail-gx0-f16.google.com [209.85.217.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966268FC17 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so3480264gxk.19 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.48.3 with SMTP id v3mr2884406wfv.8.1223932912780; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from matt.spry.com (207-178-4-6.wia.com [207.178.4.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm15313396wfg.15.2008.10.13.14.21.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> From: Matt Simerson To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:48 -0700 References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <9AAEBB23-75E8-49B2-BA2F-0AF98F79280F@corp.spry.com> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:54 -0000 On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Matt Simerson wrote: >> It all depends on your workload. If you work your backup serves >> hard (as I do, backing up thousands of OS instances), you'll have >> significant reliability problems using FreeBSD 7.1 and ZFS. After >> a crash that corrupted my file systems, I have moved to 8-head >> with Pawel's latest patch. >> My backup servers have between 16 and 24 disks each. The ones with >> 16GB of RAM crash far less frequently than my server that has only >> 2GB. That one is getting upgraded soon. >> Matt > > I am planning to backup about 10-15 servers (mainly webservers and > few mailservers) and not expecting high load. > Did 8-current with the latest ZFS patch fixed all stability problems? > > Thanks for suggestions to both of you. > > Miroslav Lachman No, there are still stability issues under heavy load. The are just far less frequent under 8-current than under 7. I couldn't keep my systems up for more than 2 days before switching to 8. Running 8-head was better, but so far the best available configuration is 8-head with "the patch" applied. Matt