When will ZFS become stable?
ivoras at freebsd.org
Sun Jan 6 08:45:13 PST 2008
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> No, clearly it is not enough
This looks like we're constantly chasing the "right amount". Does it
depend so much on CPU and IO speed that there's never a generally
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
> more tuning than this).
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
> a 1.5GB KVA. Both were necessary.
My point is that the fact that such things are necessary (1.5 GB KVA os
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
please add the values that work for you to it (especially for KVA_PAGES
since the exact kernel configuration line is never spelled out in the
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 to
> have problems.
I know it's experimental, but requiring users to perform so much tuning
just to get it work without crashing will mean it will get a bad
reputation early on. Do you (or anyone) know what are the reasons for
not having vm.kmem_size to 512 MB by default? Better yet, why not
increase both vm.kmem_size and KVA_PAGES to (the equivalent of) 640 MB
or 768 MB by default for 7.0?
>Users of 7.0-RELEASE should not have unrealistic
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20080106/5b12f2ce/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current