ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage

Tue Oct 14 22:27:22 UTC 2008

This is a known issue.  HEAD has diverged from the sources that the patch was generated against. 

I've been running with a HEAD from 2008-08-24 with the patch and upgraded ZFS pool/FS's and
have no complaints.  I'm just waiting patiently for pjd at FreeBSD.org to either
update the patch or commit the updated bits to HEAD.

I'm not going to update my system again till something is in svn/cvs.

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                E-Mail: ler at lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-fs at freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-fs at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Ruslan Kovtun
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:00 PM
To: freebsd-fs at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage

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 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"