> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
> double-check how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS
> wiki currently says you can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB;
> however, elsewhere I've seen someone claim that you need at least 4 GB.
> ...
> How a
On 2010-Jul-19 07:15:45 +0800, Richard Elling wrote:
>On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:40 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> 3.5GB. Note that in any case, patching ARC to work around the out-
>> of-free-memory bug is fairly important.
>
>Do you have a CR for this bug?
This is a FreeBSD-specific bug related to inte
On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:40 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2010-Jul-17 01:24:57 +0800, Michael Johnson
> wrote:
>> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
>> double-check
>> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says
>> you
>> can go as
On 2010-Jul-17 01:24:57 +0800, Michael Johnson wrote:
>I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
>double-check
>how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
>can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
>so
"Sam Fourman Jr." wrote:
> using FreeBSD 9 w/ ZFSv15 using default settings, nothing in loader.conf
> or nothing in sysctl.conf and a GENERIC kernel
>
> 12GB of memory seems to be all ZFS wanted to use, I have tried
> machines with 32GB
> but zfs never wants to use more unless you play with loade
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Michael Johnson
wrote:
> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
> double-check
> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Michael Johnson wrote:
Just curious, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD
(as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about the OSs in
question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general?
The FreeBSD OS itself is normally leaner but Fr
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:57 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
> us, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD
> (as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about
> the OSs in
> question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general?
Compared to Solaris, in my estimatio
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Michael Johnson
wrote:
> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
> double-check
> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:24 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
>>double-check
>> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says
>you
>> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 G
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend simply using stripe of mirrors.
You'll have better performance, and good resilience against errors. And
you can grow later as you need to by just adding additional drive pairs.
-- Garrett
Or in my case, I find my home dat
1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're
going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good
for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able
to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.)
Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend sim
I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
double-check
how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you
can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
someone
claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here
13 matches
Mail list logo
