ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage

[Ruslan Kovtun]

Thanks, Matt.

I decide to correct these errors manually. Now rebuilding is in process.  But 
I am afraid that I have missed something and it can corrupt my data in zfs 
pool. Lets check.  :)  

__________________________________________
> As I mentioned earlier, you want to sync to -HEAD as of the date of
> the patch. Try something like this:
>
>
> $ more /usr/local/etc/cvsup-head
> *default host=cvsup8.FreeBSD.org
> *default base=/var/db
> *default prefix=/usr
> *default release=cvs tag=.
> *default delete use-rel-suffix
> *default date=2008.08.13.00.00.00
> *default compress
> src-all
>
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Ruslan Kovtun wrote:
> > I tried to apply this patch (zfs_20080727.patch) but I have found
> > several
> > errors (see below). Is this problem with patch or I need manualy
> > apply these
> > changes?
> >
> > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/
> > zfs_context.h
> > using Plan A...
> > Hunk #11 failed at 347.
> >
> > Patching file cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys/
> > zfs_context.h
> > using Plan A...
> > Hunk #11 failed at 347.
> >
> > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/
> > zfs_ctldir.c
> > using Plan A...
> > Hunk #26 failed at 1053.
> >
> > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/
> > zfs_replay.c
> > using Plan A...
> > Hunk #18 failed at 766.
> >
> > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/
> > zfs_vnops.c using
> > Plan A...
> > Hunk #82 failed at 3478.
> >
> > Patching file sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/
> > zfs_znode.c using
> > Plan A...
> > Hunk #6 failed at 136.
> > Hunk #13 failed at 560.
> > Hunk #18 failed at 759.
> > Hunk #20 failed at 877.
> > Hunk #26 failed at 1336.
> >
> > Patching file sys/kern/kern_jail.c using Plan A...
> > Hunk #1 failed at 34.
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> >
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >
> > --
> > ________________
> > Ruslan Kovtun
> > mailto: yalur at mail.ru
> > mob: +380503557878, +380919015095
> > ICQ: 277696182
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"



-- 
________________
Ruslan Kovtun 
mailto: yalur at mail.ru
mob: +380503557878, +380919015095
ICQ: 277696182