On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:25, Alexander@ wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:39:48 -0500 jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:47, fbsdlist@ wrote:
Anyone know if it is adjustable on a system with 1024MB of ram ?
Is this just being auto calculated by some other value ?
You may want to make sure that vm.kmem_size is set to a value much
larger than vfs.zfs.arc_max. Default value may be too small to allow
such a large ARC.
On a side note, I'm not sure that ZFS is a good match for system
with only 1G of RAM. By trial and error on my box with 8G or memory
I've figured out that I need to set arc_max ~1G below physical
memory size to avoid lockups under load. YMMV.
ZFS on this box with 1G has been quite enjoyable actually. With the
settings I have posted I have not had any lockup on stable/7 and no
sudden freezes or waits for transfers. So this entirely thus far has
been a godsend. I had even put this thing through some of the
tortures that others have posted to the list and not come up with the
same results but better. There is obviously a lot of variables in
this between hardware and configurations used so the results are
minimal in comparison. With ZFS in place on this machine it performs
a little bit under specs for the hardware but I wouldn't expect
anything less for such a file-system.
You may want to switch to fletcher4 checksums. This is the default in
Solaris and 8.0 now. I didn't merge this change to 7-stable as I didn't
took the time to analyze if the change for the default has some unwanted
implications for existig pools.
I will do this and report back with any differences that I find. As for
your previous email that arrived I believe after this one, Thank you for
your replies I appreciate the feedback.
I have a 9-current box with 1GB RAM and ZFS which shows the slow-down
after some hours of running (and doing things) too. It would be good to
make a list of OS versions and if there are slowdowns or not (anyone
with time out there to have a look at the mails and get this info out
of the mails / people?). Maybe it is related to changes not in ZFS...
Bye,
Alexander.
Is there any recommendations from anyone ? so there is a basis for what
can be tested from. (unixbench|iozone|others) in comparison to the same
results version to version ?
Thanks
--
jhell
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
