Re: When will ZFS become stable?

Ivan Voras wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 
>>> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :)
>>
>> My admittedly second-hand understanding is that ZFS shows similarly 
>> gratuitous memory use on both Mac OS X and Solaris.  One advantage 
>> Solaris has is that it runs primarily on expensive 64-bit servers with 
>> lots of memory.  Part of the problem on FreeBSD is that people run ZFS 
>> on sytems with 32-bit CPUs and a lot less memory.  It could be that 
>> ZFS should be enforcing higher minimum hardware requirements to mount 
>> (i.e., refusing to run on systems with 32-bit address spaces or <4gb 
>> of memory and inadequate tuning).
> 
> Solaris nowadays refuses to install on anything without at least 1 GB of 
> memory. I'm all for ZFS refusing to run on inadequatly tuned hardware, 
> but apparently there's no algorithmic way to say what *is* adequately 
> tuned, except for "try X and if it crashes, try Y, repeat as necessary".

What you appear to be still missing is that ZFS also causes memory 
exhaustion panics when run on 32-bit Solaris.  In fact (unless they have 
since fixed it), the opensolaris ZFS code makes *absolutely no attempt* 
to accomodate i386 memory limitations at all.

Kris