From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 21 18:15:31 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 8E36C1065676 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:15:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f17.google.com (mail-gx0-f17.google.com [209.85.217.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E25B8FC1C for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:15:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matt@corp.spry.com) Received: by gxk10 with SMTP id 10so542691gxk.19 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.164.10 with SMTP id m10mr35602wfe.60.1219342529251; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from matt.spry.com ( [207.178.4.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 31sm389563wff.16.2008.08.21.11.15.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9EA26FF4-3B5D-4C41-8A9D-50F752159566@corp.spry.com> From: Matt Simerson To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:15:20 -0700 References: <20080727125413.GG1345@garage.freebsd.pl> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Cc: Subject: Re: ZFS patches 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: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:15:31 -0000 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"