Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:44:43PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:43:43AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
Even on amd64, you need to tune the system with less than 4GB RAM.
The only correct answer to how much RAM do you need to run ZFS is
always
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 08:42:44PM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
zfs is a resource hog. i386 is not able to handle the demand as well
as amd64.
Even amd64 is no guarantee. I installed
On 07/24/15 07:58, Holm Tiffe wrote:
..interrestingly people here seem to focus my problem to ZFS.. but my
problem was to build an raid over 4 disks on my old i386 machine and that
failed with 2 different approaches.
I'm accepting that ZFS is a too big thing for the i386 architecture
and I
Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 07/24/15 07:58, Holm Tiffe wrote:
..interrestingly people here seem to focus my problem to ZFS.. but my
problem was to build an raid over 4 disks on my old i386 machine and that
failed with 2 different approaches.
I'm accepting that ZFS is a too big thing for
On 07/24/15 07:58, Holm Tiffe wrote:
..interrestingly people here seem to focus my problem to ZFS.. but my
problem was to build an raid over 4 disks on my old i386 machine and that
failed with 2 different approaches.
I'm accepting that ZFS is a too big thing for the i386 architecture
and I
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Holm Tiffe h...@freibergnet.de wrote:
...more RAM? Always more RAM?
For ZFS, yes. Stick to UFS otherwise.
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com
Glen Barber wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:54:00AM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Actually I'm quite sucessfully running zfs on i386 (in a VM) ... here's
the trick (which leads me to suspect ARC handling as the problem) - when
I get to 512M of kernel space or less than 1G of RAM
snip
...more RAM? Always more RAM?
Reality check please, this is an i386 Machine with 2 Gbytes.
It has two of 3 sockets polluted with RAM Modules (1G), there is not
that
much Space to give it more RAM.
i386 is a supported architecture as far as I know, ok it where nice to
have in
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:50:52 +0100 Matthew Seaman matt...@freebsd.org wrote
On 07/24/15 07:58, Holm Tiffe wrote:
..interrestingly people here seem to focus my problem to ZFS.. but my
problem was to build an raid over 4 disks on my old i386 machine and that
failed with 2 different
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:48:06 + Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:40:42PM -0400, Jason Unovitch wrote:
..uh top quoting..
Trying to mount root from zfs:zroot/ROOT/default [].
Fatal double fault:
eip = 0xc0b416f5
esp = 0xe2673000
ebp =
Glen Barber wrote:
ZFS on i386 requires KSTACK_PAGES=4 in the kernel configuration to work
properly, as noted in the 10.1-RELEASE errata (and release notes, if
I remember correctly).
We cannot set KSTACK_PAGES=4 in GENERIC by default, as it is too
disruptive.
Why?
If you are using ZFS
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:40:42PM -0400, Jason Unovitch wrote:
..uh top quoting..
Trying to mount root from zfs:zroot/ROOT/default [].
Fatal double fault:
eip = 0xc0b416f5
esp = 0xe2673000
ebp = 0xe2673008
cpuid =0; apic id = 00
panic: double fault
cpuid = 0
KDB stack
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:19:20AM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Glen Barber wrote:
ZFS on i386 requires KSTACK_PAGES=4 in the kernel configuration to work
properly, as noted in the 10.1-RELEASE errata (and release notes, if
I remember correctly).
We cannot set KSTACK_PAGES=4 in
..uh top quoting..
Trying to mount root from zfs:zroot/ROOT/default [].
Fatal double fault:
eip = 0xc0b416f5
esp = 0xe2673000
ebp = 0xe2673008
cpuid =0; apic id = 00
panic: double fault
cpuid = 0
KDB stack backtrace:
#0 0xc0b72832 at kdb_backtrace+0x52
#1 0xc0b339cb at vpanic+0x11b
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:43:43AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
Even on amd64, you need to tune the system with less than 4GB RAM.
The only correct answer to how much RAM do you need to run ZFS is
always more AFAICT.
mcl
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 08:42:44PM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
zfs is a resource hog. i386 is not able to handle the demand as well
as amd64.
Even amd64 is no guarantee. I installed one of the Illumos spinoffs
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
zfs is a resource hog. i386 is not able to handle the demand as well
as amd64.
Even amd64 is no guarantee. I installed one of the Illumos spinoffs on a
2GB amd64 netbook (they mostly force zfs). I think it lasted 2
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:44:43PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:43:43AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
Even on amd64, you need to tune the system with less than 4GB RAM.
The only correct answer to how much RAM do you need to run ZFS is
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:54:00AM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:44:43PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:43:43AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
Even on amd64, you need to tune the system with less than 4GB RAM.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:44:43PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:43:43AM +, Glen Barber wrote:
Even on amd64, you need to tune the system with less than 4GB RAM.
The only correct answer to how much RAM do you need to run ZFS is
always more AFAICT.
There's a
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:
Even amd64 is no guarantee. I installed one of the Illumos spinoffs on a
2GB amd64 netbook (they mostly force zfs). I think it lasted 2 days
before
the kernel panics started.
Even on amd64, you need to tune the system
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:00:03 + Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote
..
FreeBSD kernel grew since 10.1-RELEASE, so this is not unexpected.
Not trying to hijack the thread, or anything.
But on that note; does FreeBSD keep a graph, or anything that indicates
kernel [size] over major versions?
I'm
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:19:20AM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Why is zfs on i386 so hard?
zfs is a resource hog. i386 is not able to handle the demand as well
as amd64.
I have never, ever, heard of anyone who has a deep understanding of
zfs on FreeBSD recommend anything other than amd64.
What's the panic?
As your using ZFS I'd lay money on the fact your blowing the stack,
which would require kernel built with:
options KSTACK_PAGES=4
Regards
Steve
On 22/07/2015 08:10, Holm Tiffe wrote:
Hi,
yesterday I've decided to to put my old Workstation in my shack and
to
..uh top quoting..
Trying to mount root from zfs:zroot/ROOT/default [].
Fatal double fault:
eip = 0xc0b416f5
esp = 0xe2673000
ebp = 0xe2673008
cpuid =0; apic id = 00
panic: double fault
cpuid = 0
KDB stack backtrace:
#0 0xc0b72832 at kdb_backtrace+0x52
#1 0xc0b339cb at vpanic+0x11b
#2 0xc0b338ab
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 01:57:26PM +0200, Holm Tiffe wrote:
..uh top quoting..
Trying to mount root from zfs:zroot/ROOT/default [].
Fatal double fault:
eip = 0xc0b416f5
esp = 0xe2673000
ebp = 0xe2673008
cpuid =0; apic id = 00
panic: double fault
cpuid = 0
KDB stack backtrace:
#0
26 matches
Mail list logo
