Robert Watson wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:

quoted text
>> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :)
>=20
> My admittedly second-hand understanding is that ZFS shows similarly=20
> gratuitous memory use on both Mac OS X and Solaris.  One advantage=20
> Solaris has is that it runs primarily on expensive 64-bit servers with =

quoted text
> lots of memory.  Part of the problem on FreeBSD is that people run ZFS =

quoted text
> on sytems with 32-bit CPUs and a lot less memory.  It could be that ZFS=
=20
quoted text
> should be enforcing higher minimum hardware requirements to mount (i.e.=
,=20
quoted text
> refusing to run on systems with 32-bit address spaces or <4gb of memory=
=20
quoted text
> and inadequate tuning).

Solaris nowadays refuses to install on anything without at least 1 GB of =

memory. I'm all for ZFS refusing to run on inadequatly tuned hardware,=20
but apparently there's no algorithmic way to say what *is* adequately=20
tuned, except for "try X and if it crashes, try Y, repeat as necessary".

The reason why I'm arguing this topic is that it isn't a matter of=20
tuning like "it will run slowly if you don't tune it" - it's more like=20
"it won't run at all if you don't go through the laborious=20
trial-and-error process of tuning it, including patching your kernel and =

running a non-GENERIC configuration".