On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:23:56PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sunday, 7 August 2016 1:58:25 AM AEST Robin Humble via luv-main wrote:
has anyone else had issues with ZFS on recent kernels and distros? Debian/Jessie (the latest version of Debian) is working really well for me. Several systems in a variety of configurations without any problems at all.
thanks for the data point. I assume that's running an old kernel though? if it's not 4.6+ then it shouldn't hit this problem. memcg is needed too % cat /proc/self/cgroup | grep mem 9:memory:/user.slice/user-XXXX.slice
I'm a bit of a newbie to daily use of ZFS, but I found it's fairly easy to completely lockup with lots of metadata ops (eg. du or big rsync). I had some problems when I first started with a system that had 4G of RAM. I
I've 8G ram which should be heaps. limiting l2arc to 1G didn't help either. actually, come to think of it, I could get logs out if ZFS locks up via rsyslog to something lan/cloudy. I'll try that next time.
For the laptops I run I use BTRFS. It gives all the benefits of ZFS for a configuration that doesn't have anything better than RAID-1 and doesn't support SSD cache (IE laptop hardware) without the pain.
fair enough. I wanted to test ZFS for other reasons though - Lustre ZFS OSDs. BTW does btrfs still have issues when the filesystem fills? does ZFS?
For a laptop slow disk performance usually isn't a problem and ZFS probably isn't going to do much better if you have a single HDD. If you have a SSD in your laptop (which costs $200 for 500G) then BTRFS performance will be great.
on my intel SSD, ZFS is noticably slower than ext4. part of it's because of ZFS's poor integration with linux's virtual memory system and both sets of caches clearly fighting each other, but presumably it's slower 'cos it has more features (eg. checksum, compression) too. cheers, robin