Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 06:06:31 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Craig Boston <craig@xfoil.gank.org>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Darren Reed <darrenr@freebsd.org>, Vince <jhary@unsane.co.uk> Subject: Re: ZFS committed to the FreeBSD base. Message-ID: <20070523100631.GA30143@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070523093231.GA29797@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070410003505.GA8189@nowhere> <20070410003837.GB8189@nowhere> <20070410011125.GB38535@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070410013034.GC8189@nowhere> <20070410014233.GD8189@nowhere> <4651BD6F.5050301@unsane.co.uk> <20070522083112.GA5136@hub.freebsd.org> <4652B15D.5060505@unsane.co.uk> <20070523085532.GA27542@hub.freebsd.org> <20070523093231.GA29797@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 05:32:31AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > I would actually be interested to know how Solaris gets away with > this. It sounds like there must be less of a distinction between > memory allocated to the kernel and to userland, and the ability for > memory to flow between these two with some form of backpressure when > userland wants memory that is currently gobbled by up solaris ZFS. > > This kind of system probably makes good sense (although maybe there > are trade-offs), but anyway it's not how FreeBSD does it. After some further thought I guess the difference is just that on a 64-bit kernel you don't have KVA issues and can indeed map all of physical RAM into the kernel for caching. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070523100631.GA30143>