[PC-BSD Testing] Panic from ZFS

Kris Moore kris at pcbsd.com
Fri Oct 24 11:22:50 PDT 2008

Edward O'Callaghan wrote:
> Exactly Rod.
> Although I would not regards the ZFS port as totally unstable/unusable
> but there are min requirements that should be put in place to protect
> people/users from data loss.
> For a production version, not putting these restricts in place if it
> is a known is some what ignorant.
> You and I may find it fun, but when someone loses data after a few
> months of "oh but it was running fine" is no so fun for them. Are we
> not aiming to be more stable then Linux or are we trying to play the
> kernel panic game?
> Bill; Try filling that zpool up some more then run a scrub, the
> following _may_ happen, your whole zpool will be corrupted with a nice
> kernel panic else just a kernel panic with a unbootable system.
> ZFS in FreeBSD is no where near as stable as it is in OpenSolaris.
> Just put the restrictions into place. I am giving you informed advice
> here (I'm from the OpenSolaris community as well btw).
> This will be the last warning.
> Best Regards,
> Edward.

Well, I can go ahead and put a lockout on ZFS if memory is less than 
<1GB in the next ISO release. Will 1GB be guaranteed to be stable 
though? I would hate to lock it down at <1GB, and find out that really 
it needs 2GB, or even 4GB to be fully stable and production ready. We 
just need to be sure that whatever we specify as the minimum *will* work 
under all loads.


Kris Moore
PC-BSD Software

More information about the Testing mailing list