Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:21:48 -0700 From: Matt Simerson <matt@corp.spry.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage Message-ID: <16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED@corp.spry.com> In-Reply-To: <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz> References: <48F334A0.3080005@quip.cz> <9AAEBB23-75E8-49B2-BA2F-0AF98F79280F@corp.spry.com> <48F3B8D6.6060309@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16C9B293-7BBE-496D-BA0B-DC78299186ED>