Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:30:05 +0100 From: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: "Pawel Jakub Dawidek" <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <9bbcef730801070230k14f6x567c8caf75d4944d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080107095952.GA25096@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080107095952.GA25096@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/01/2008, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> wrote: > Let try to think how we can warn people clearly about proper tunning and > what proper tunning actually means. I think we should advise increasing > KVA_PAGES on i386 and not only vm.kmem_size. We could also warn that > running ZFS on 32bit systems is not generally recommended. Any other > suggestions? I'd suggest we do give all three warnings (KVA_PAGES, kmem_size, i386) at once, preferably both when the ZFS module loads and when a zpool is created. I think it's important that the tree pieces of information be given at the same time so the user doesn't need to hunt solutions after panics. Your comment that people are panicking more than ZFS is correct, but that illustrates the importance people give to having file system not crash on them :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730801070230k14f6x567c8caf75d4944d>