Thoughts on TMPFS no longer being considered "highly
eirnym at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 05:11:08 UTC 2011
On 27 June 2011 17:42, David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Hi KIB,
> Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have
> PRs covering those.
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> - I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with tmpfs. He
>> would have more details. I somewhat remember some panic on execve(2) the
>> binary located on tmpfs.
> I've been following the patches you've been passing to Peter Holm as part
> of this thread. Seems good progress has been made in fixing some of the
>> Removing the warning will not make the issues coming away.
> Quite true, but is there any other subsystem where we know we have bugs
> and have put up such a scary warning?
> I've never used ZFS on i386, but I understand it is trivial to panic
> with out-of-the-box settings. We don't print a dire warning for ZFS
> usage on 32-bit platforms. So I'm not sure we should keep it for TMPFS.
amd64 with 4G ram is also not the best for heavy-loaded ZFS server. I
have to increase kernel memory up to 1.5-2 G to be sure if it works
stable and fast.
-- Eir Nym
> I cannot tell from your response if you're OK or against removing
> the warning. [especially if your patches pass the Peter Holm test
> and remove some of the bugs]
> -- David (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-current