Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:43:18 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <47811336.4060605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <flr340$mum$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> <20080106170452.L105@fledge.watson.org> <flr340$mum$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ivan Voras wrote: > >>> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :) >> >> My admittedly second-hand understanding is that ZFS shows similarly >> gratuitous memory use on both Mac OS X and Solaris. One advantage >> Solaris has is that it runs primarily on expensive 64-bit servers with >> lots of memory. Part of the problem on FreeBSD is that people run ZFS >> on sytems with 32-bit CPUs and a lot less memory. It could be that >> ZFS should be enforcing higher minimum hardware requirements to mount >> (i.e., refusing to run on systems with 32-bit address spaces or <4gb >> of memory and inadequate tuning). > > Solaris nowadays refuses to install on anything without at least 1 GB of > memory. I'm all for ZFS refusing to run on inadequatly tuned hardware, > but apparently there's no algorithmic way to say what *is* adequately > tuned, except for "try X and if it crashes, try Y, repeat as necessary". What you appear to be still missing is that ZFS also causes memory exhaustion panics when run on 32-bit Solaris. In fact (unless they have since fixed it), the opensolaris ZFS code makes *absolutely no attempt* to accomodate i386 memory limitations at all. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47811336.4060605>