BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

[Jonathan Dieter]

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter <jdieter at lesbg.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because
> >> of it's features
> >
> > For what it's worth, we've been running btrfs on our school fileservers
> > since September.  After a few teething problems (fixed by
> > increasing /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes), we've had pretty much zero
> > trouble.
> >
> 
> Wait what?  I know we use lots o ram, but you shouldn't have to bump
> min_free_kbytes.  What were you seeing?  Thanks,

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was btrfs that was causing the problem.
We got new servers when we did our upgrade and ran into problems with
the e1000e kernel module being unable to allocate memory even though
there was loads free.  Bumping up min_free_kbytes fixed it.

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626851 for more detail.

Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110223/4da80334/attachment.bin