On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 20:28 +0200, Angelo Turetta wrote:
Tim Chase wrote:
Hello,
I decided to give the new zfs code a try and upgraded my stable-7 system
and discovered a panic that I can reproduce at will.
I just had the same problem, and it turned out I was not diligent when I
Hello,
I decided to give the new zfs code a try and upgraded my stable-7 system
and discovered a panic that I can reproduce at will.
This is an i386 system with 1.5GB of RAM and a single zfs pool:
appbuild# zpool status
pool: backup
state: ONLINE
status: The
Tim Chase wrote:
Hello,
I decided to give the new zfs code a try and upgraded my stable-7 system
and discovered a panic that I can reproduce at will.
I just had the same problem, and it turned out I was not diligent when I
first set my zfs pool up :)
To use vm.kmem_size=512M you need to
On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
vm.kmem_size=512M
vm.kmem_size_max=512M
vfs.zfs.arc_max=100M
$1 = 0xc0792320 kmem_malloc(131072): kmem_map too small: 325656576
total allocated
It looks like you are suffering from fragmentation of your kmem
address
As I mentioned in the initial e-mail, auto-tuning is only safe to rely
on on amd64.
-Kip
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Tim Chase t...@chase2k.com wrote:
Hello,
I decided to give the new zfs code a try and upgraded my stable-7 system
and discovered a panic that I can reproduce at will.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kip Macy km...@freebsd.org wrote:
As I mentioned in the initial e-mail, auto-tuning is only safe to rely
on on amd64.
Tying ZFS in to UMA to allow zone limits to reduce memory pressure on
write as well as reduce the ARC's ability to grow without bound is on
my
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kip Macy wrote:
As I mentioned in the initial e-mail, auto-tuning is only safe to rely
on on amd64.
OK, that wasn't clear to me with the latest zfs code. I'll try it
with a proper 512M setting as I was using before (along with setting
KVA_PAGES).
- Tim
