Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:15:20 -0700 From: Matt Simerson <matt@corp.spry.com> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ZFS patches Message-ID: <9EA26FF4-3B5D-4C41-8A9D-50F752159566@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <C5886CD0-A203-4AE7-B91B-3F592D5861B1@yellowspace.net> References: <20080727125413.GG1345@garage.freebsd.pl> <C5886CD0-A203-4AE7-B91B-3F592D5861B1@yellowspace.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It's still a bit too early for me to make any announcement about ZFS and stability on HEAD but I was having deadlocks on 7.0 every other day under my workload. I took the plunge and upgraded both my servers (which are now in production, BTW) to HEAD. I have one running HEAD without the latest patches and one with HEAD + patch and have not experienced a deadlock since the upgrade. FreeBSD back01.int.spry.com 8.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Fri Aug 15 16:42:36 PDT 2008 root@back01.int.spry.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/ sys/BACK01 amd64 FreeBSD back02.int.spry.com 8.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #1: Wed Aug 13 13:57:19 PDT 2008 root@back02.int.spry.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/ sys/BACK02-HEAD amd64 It turns out that I disliked the known instability of ZFS and 7-STABLE than the unknown risks associated with HEAD. As always, YMMMV but since ZFS is still experimental, odds are good you'll have a better experience if you are willing to upgrade to -HEAD. Matt $ cat /boot/loader.conf vm.kmem_size="1536M" vm.kmem_size_max="1536M" vfs.zfs.arc_min="16M" vfs.zfs.arc_max="64M" vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable=1 On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Lorenzo Perone wrote: > Hi, > > Just let me intro this mail with a "Sorry for asking..." > as I know the efforts already ongoing ar huge and I do > respect this! > > But, here it is: any chances to see these patches on > 7-STABLE anytime... soon? > > I think there would be many more testers available (me included) > than for HEAD. In my case, for example, all I could afford now > is to set up a complete-test-only box with the HEAD code, which in > turn wouldn't be a real test case as it would be "just" a test box > for zfs. > > Whereas I could afford to test it in much more "real life" > situation with 7-STABLE. > My guess is that this would be the case for many others. > > The problem about HEAD is that there would be too many > spots with potential problems (which ports work, which don't, > scripts that might make 7-bound assumptions, etc..) > so that I can't afford that for anything below "test only" boxes.. > > Just experienced a deadlock again on 7-STABLE with zfs, that's > why I'm refreshing this... > > Kudos && Regards, > > Lorenzo > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9EA26FF4-3B5D-4C41-8A9D-50F752159566>