Darren Reed wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Darren Reed wrote: >>> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Well yes, that is one hypothesis, but the evidence points elsewhere >>>> as well. Prior the change you reference, some of my zfs machines >>>> would run for weeks before hitting a load pattern that exhausted >>>> their kmem_map and triggered the panic. Also unless I have missed >>>> it I am not seeing the sudden flood of panic reports that may >>>> indicate sudden breakage. It is quite possible that this particular >>>> report has nothing to do with the recent change. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> But here's something else to ponder... >>> >>> I've been using ZFS since it was internal beta at Sun, at first on >>> i386 and later on amd64. >>> I've never run into this kind of panic on Solaris. System can get >>> very slow, yes, with >>> ZFS hogging lots of memory, but it never panic'd because of it. >>> >>> We need to come up with a strategy here to solve this problem, be it >>> fixing the kmem >>> virtual memory or fixing zfs. >> >> Yes, Solaris does something architecturally different because it is >> apparently acceptable for zfs to use gigabytes of memory by default. > > Well, if you were designing a file system for servers, is there any > reason that you wouldn't try to use all of the RAM available? No, but it's different to what FreeBSD does. Especially on i386. KrisReceived on Wed Sep 26 2007 - 20:12:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC