>
> ...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 i
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:50:52 +0100 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
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Holm Tiffe wrote:
> ...more RAM? Always more RAM?
For ZFS, yes. Stick to UFS otherwise.
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs,
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
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
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
> a
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
> a
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
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 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
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:00:03 + Glen Barber 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 sure I'm not th
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 tha
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 t
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.
>
Th
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Glen Barber 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 with
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.or
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 08:42:44PM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Mark Linimon 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
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Mark Linimon 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 days before
the kerne
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.
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_PA
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 usi
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:48:06 + Glen Barber 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
> >
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
>> ..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
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 backtra
..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
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 insta
Hi,
yesterday I've decided to to put my old "Workstation" in my shack and
to install a new FreeBSD on it, it is the computer I've used previously
for my daily work, reading Mails, programming controllers and so on..
It is am AMD XP300+ with an Adaptec 29320 and four IBM 72GB SCSI3 Disks
with onl
27 matches
Mail list logo
