Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:31 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kmem_map too small: 3832475648 total allocated Message-ID: <E79134A9-2174-4905-85A6-ADAEC0EA7D66@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <n2m2e027be01004290844k51dd6060q77375e894ff4efc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4BD8F7FA.2080103@jrv.org> <20100429145334.GB62822@roberto-al.eurocontrol.fr> <n2m2e027be01004290844k51dd6060q77375e894ff4efc4@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 29, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ollivier Robert > <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> wrote: >> According to James R. Van Artsdalen: >>> system is a Core i7 975 (3.33 GHz x 4 cores 3x threads per core) = with 12 >>> GB of RAM, a 2x2TB ZFS boot pool and a second (idle) pool of 16x2TB. >>=20 >>> panic: kmem_malloc(131072): kmem_map too small: 3832475648 total = allocated >>=20 >> Apart from the fact that you must at least set vm.kmem_size to = something like 2x your RAM, one rule of thumb I've seen discussed for = ZFS is that you will need approximatively 1 GB of RAM per TB of data so = you may be a bit short here to get optimal perfs. >>=20 >=20 > Citation needed? I have a file server running amd64 8-STABLE with 4GB > of RAM, 6 x 1.5 TB drives in raidz, and have never had any problems > with memory usage. Are you saying that after my next update, adding > another 6 x 1.5 TB drives, it will start being flaky and/or panicing > with kmem_map too small errors? >=20 I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely absurd that any filesystem has to = wire down 2GB of RAM, and that the solution to panics is buy more RAM. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E79134A9-2174-4905-85A6-ADAEC0EA7D66>