On 27 June 2011 17:42, David O'Brien <obrien_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi KIB, > Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have > PRs covering those. > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: >> - I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with tmpfs. He >> would have more details. I somewhat remember some panic on execve(2) the >> binary located on tmpfs. > > I've been following the patches you've been passing to Peter Holm as part > of this thread. Seems good progress has been made in fixing some of the > issues. > > >> Removing the warning will not make the issues coming away. > > Quite true, but is there any other subsystem where we know we have bugs > and have put up such a scary warning? > > I've never used ZFS on i386, but I understand it is trivial to panic > with out-of-the-box settings. We don't print a dire warning for ZFS > usage on 32-bit platforms. So I'm not sure we should keep it for TMPFS. > amd64 with 4G ram is also not the best for heavy-loaded ZFS server. I have to increase kernel memory up to 1.5-2 G to be sure if it works stable and fast. -- Eir Nym > > I cannot tell from your response if you're OK or against removing > the warning. [especially if your patches pass the Peter Holm test > and remove some of the bugs] > > -- > -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org) > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >Received on Tue Jun 28 2011 - 03:11:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:15 UTC