Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:06:13 +0100 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Zfs heavy io writing | zfskern txg_thread_enter Message-ID: <56C72155.10500@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <56C71DD8.3040505@multiplay.co.uk> References: <CAM1TVW-yOvU6VM19PadD5ygsv2-Vb-_8T7SKjcsP7Ov0Q5A5SQ@mail.gmail.com> <56C70365.1050800@sorbs.net> <56C70AB0.6050400@multiplay.co.uk> <56C71350.3020602@sorbs.net> <56C71DD8.3040505@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steven Hartland wrote: > On 19/02/2016 13:06, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >> Steven Hartland wrote: >>> >>> On 19/02/2016 11:58, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >>>> Niccolò Corvini wrote: >>>>> Hi, first time here! >>>>> We are having a problem with a server running FreeBsd 9.1 with ZFS >>>>> on a >>>>> >>>> You should upgrade to a supported version first... 9.3 would probably >>>> be the best (rather than 10.x) as it's still supported and uses the >>>> same >>>> ABI (ie you should need to reinstall all your ports/packages - though >>>> you should because it sometimes breaks things - at least check for >>>> broken things :) .) >>>> >>>> If you're not familiar "freebsd-update -r 9.3-RELEASE upgrade" will >>>> help >>>> you do it without too many problems. >>> 9.3 is still ancient, and while "supported" its not in active >>> development, and to be blunt no one will be interested in helping to >>> diagnose any actual issue on something so old. >> So supported is not really supported... Is that an official position? > Supported for 9.x, which is a "Legacy Release", I would say is > supported for security and other critical issues only, which is the > same for pretty much every project / product out there. Oh, it's legacy is it? Funny you should say that ... "Production = Legacy" then...? Oh wait... it's support ... lets look at what the "support lifecycle" says on it.. >>> 10.x has a totally different ZFS IO scheduler for example, so its >>> differently for most workloads. >> But the user is on 9.x not 10.x and 10.x changes a lot more than just >> the ZFS IO scheduler. If this is a production machine, then an upgrade >> to 9.3 may be easier as it would require less regression testing.... Or >> is this another case of people don't run FreeBSD in production >> environments so it doesn't matter...? > > Yes but 9.x is already legacy and becomes unsupported in December of > this year, so the process of migration to 10.x should be well on the > way by now tbh. So is 10.1 and 10.2 then... Oh so that will be why you're telling them to upgrade to a non-supported beta release....! Seriously...! (Sorry for the html email with jpegs embedded, hate it myself - especially to mailing lists, but a picture is worth a 1000 words especially when screen grabbed from a few minutes ago...) -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56C72155.10500>