ZFS on backup fileserver - RAM usage

Matt Simerson matt at corp.spry.com
Tue Oct 14 23:18:08 UTC 2008


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



More information about the freebsd-fs mailing list