Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:18:02 -0700 From: Matt Simerson <matt@corp.spry.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage Message-ID: <5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru> References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> <200810142359.34263.yalur@mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As I mentioned earlier, you want to sync to -HEAD as of the date of the patch. Try something like this: $ more /usr/local/etc/cvsup-head *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix *default date=2008.08.13.00.00.00 *default compress src-all On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Ruslan Kovtun wrote: > I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found > several > errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy > apply these > changes? > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > zfs_context.h > using Plan A... > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/ > zfs_context.h > using Plan A... > Hunk #11 failed at 347. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_ctldir.c > using Plan A... > Hunk #26 failed at 1053. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_replay.c > using Plan A... > Hunk #18 failed at 766. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_vnops.c using > Plan A... > Hunk #82 failed at 3478. > > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > zfs_znode.c using > Plan A... > Hunk #6 failed at 136. > Hunk #13 failed at 560. > Hunk #18 failed at 759. > Hunk #20 failed at 877. > Hunk #26 failed at 1336. > > Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A... > Hunk #1 failed at 34. > > > ____________________________________________________ >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" > > > > -- > ________________ > Ruslan Kovtun > mailto: yalur@mail.ru > mob: +380503557878, +380919015095 > ICQ: 277696182
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5B6268D5-3418-4BB1-A013-D04F299C68C1>