On 15 July 2015 at 14:58, Philip Murray wrote:
>
>> On 13/07/2015, at 11:58 pm, Karl Denninger wrote:
>>
>> Put this on your box and see if the problem goes away :-)
>>
>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187594
>>
>
> Is there a concise explanation of why this hasn’t been me
> On 13/07/2015, at 11:58 pm, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> Put this on your box and see if the problem goes away :-)
>
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187594
>
Is there a concise explanation of why this hasn’t been merged into -CURRENT?
I know there are concerns that it
On 7/14/2015 02:49, Shane Ambler wrote:
> On 14/07/2015 03:18, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>> The ARC is supposed to auto-size and use all available free memory. The
>> problem is that the VM system and ARC system both make assumptions that
>> under certain load patterns fight with one another, and
On 14/07/2015 03:18, Karl Denninger wrote:
The ARC is supposed to auto-size and use all available free memory. The
problem is that the VM system and ARC system both make assumptions that
under certain load patterns fight with one another, and when this
happens and ARC wins the system gets in tr
On 7/13/2015 12:29, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> hi,
>
> With that much storage and that many snapshots, I do think you need
> more than 96GB of RAM in the box. I'm hoping someone doing active ZFS
> work can comment..
>
> I don't think the ZFS code is completely "memory usage" safe. The
> "old" Sun sugges
hi,
With that much storage and that many snapshots, I do think you need
more than 96GB of RAM in the box. I'm hoping someone doing active ZFS
work can comment..
I don't think the ZFS code is completely "memory usage" safe. The
"old" Sun suggestions when I started using ZFS was "if your server
pan
.. and in one instance, you had 57gig of RAM allocated just to ZFS
65536 size buffers.
-adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubsc
