From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 6 16:45:13 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C9816A46E for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:45:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C1E13C510 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:45:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JBYcW-0007oK-3U for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:45:08 +0000 Received: from 89-172-37-126.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([89.172.37.126]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:45:08 +0000 Received: from ivoras by 89-172-37-126.adsl.net.t-com.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:45:08 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:45:01 +0100 Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <20080104163352.GA42835@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <9bbcef730801040958t36e48c9fjd0fbfabd49b08b97@mail.gmail.com> <200801061051.26817.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <9bbcef730801060458k4bc9f2d6uc3f097d70e087b68@mail.gmail.com> <4780D289.7020509@FreeBSD.org> <4780E546.9050303@FreeBSD.org> <9bbcef730801060651y489f1f9bw269d0968407dd8fb@mail.gmail.com> <4780EF09.4090908@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigEDC04B50439687A9573D2846" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 89-172-37-126.adsl.net.t-com.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) In-Reply-To: <4780EF09.4090908@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Sender: news Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:45:13 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigEDC04B50439687A9573D2846 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kris Kennaway wrote: > No, clearly it is not enough=20 This looks like we're constantly chasing the "right amount". Does it=20 depend so much on CPU and IO speed that there's never a generally=20 sufficient "right amount"? So when CPU and drive speed increase, the new = amount will always be some bigger value? >(and you claimed previously to have done=20 > more tuning than this).=20 Where? What else is there except kmem tuning (including KVA_PAGES)? IIRC = Pawel said all other suggested tunings don't do much. > I have it set to 600MB on the i386 system with=20 > a 1.5GB KVA. Both were necessary. My point is that the fact that such things are necessary (1.5 GB KVA os=20 a lot on i386) mean that there are serious problems which aren't getting = fixed since ZFS was imported (that's over 6 months ago). I see you've added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide; can you=20 please add the values that work for you to it (especially for KVA_PAGES=20 since the exact kernel configuration line is never spelled out in the=20 document; and say for which hardware are the values known to work)? > ZFS already tells you up front that it's experimental code and likely t= o=20 > have problems. =20 I know it's experimental, but requiring users to perform so much tuning=20 just to get it work without crashing will mean it will get a bad=20 reputation early on. Do you (or anyone) know what are the reasons for=20 not having vm.kmem_size to 512 MB by default? Better yet, why not=20 increase both vm.kmem_size and KVA_PAGES to (the equivalent of) 640 MB=20 or 768 MB by default for 7.0? >Users of 7.0-RELEASE should not have unrealistic > expectations. As I've said at the first post of this thread: I'm interested in if it's = ever going to be stable for 7.x. --------------enigEDC04B50439687A9573D2846 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgQWNldnAQVacBcgRAhigAKDK9bFXJy5Y6nLyyk7Xb98iA57cwQCgrTRz as4xA3tKTpL2jXpYtGIKDuI= =dzLD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigEDC04B50439687A9573D2846--