On 06/01/2008, Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org> wrote: > I guess what makes me mad about ZFS is that it's all-or-nothing; either > it works, or it crashes. It doesn't automatically recognize limits and > make adjustments or sacrifices when it reaches those limits, it just > crashes. Wanting multiple gigabytes of RAM for caching in order to > optimize performance is great, but crashing when it doesn't get those > multiple gigabytes of RAM is not so great, and it leaves a bad taste in > my mouth about ZFS in general. I agree with the sentiment. I don't know about its implementation, but surely some kind of backout could have be implemented? I'm just guessing here: maybe the problem is in M_NOWAIT - maybe there could be a M_NOWAIT_BUT_ALLOW_NULL that would be safe to use in non-sleepable code but could return NULL, which could be tested and the whole file system request postponed...Received on Sun Jan 06 2008 - 21:33:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC