Just checking in
Uwe Kubosch
How are you all doing?
It has been a while since I released a zfs-fuse package for Fedora/EPEL. The last was zfs-fuse-0.6.9-7.20100709git
From recent messages it seems 0.7.0 is not far away. If you would like any changes in the packaging for Fedora/EPEL, please let me know.
--
With kind regards
Uwe Kubosch
Kubosch Consulting
u...@kubosch.no
http://kubosch.no/
sgheeren
your init script sets the oom adjust for zfs-fuse as well?
Uwe Kubosch
On 2011-01-30, at 15:12, sgheeren wrote:
> On 01/30/2011 01:14 PM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>> It has been a while since I released a zfs-fuse package for Fedora/EPEL. The last was zfs-fuse-0.6.9-7.20100709git
>> From recent messages it seems 0.7.0 is not far away. If you would like any changes in the packaging for Fedora/EPEL, please let me know.
> your init script sets the oom adjust for zfs-fuse as well?
>
> http://zfs-fuse.net/issues/116
So, I changed
echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_adj"
to
echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj"
Will that suffice?
At the next release I will attempt to use the init script in the zfs-fuse tarball instead of a Fedora/EPEL specific script. Most likely I will request changes :)
sgheeren
> On 2011-01-30, at 15:12, sgheeren wrote:
>> On 01/30/2011 01:14 PM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>>> It has been a while since I released a zfs-fuse package for Fedora/EPEL. The last was zfs-fuse-0.6.9-7.20100709git
>>> From recent messages it seems 0.7.0 is not far away. If you would like any changes in the packaging for Fedora/EPEL, please let me know.
>> Yes, Uwe, just the otherday this was brought to my attention. I believe
>> your init script sets the oom adjust for zfs-fuse as well?
>>
>> http://zfs-fuse.net/issues/116
>
> So, I changed
>
> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_adj"
>
> to
>
> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj"
>
> Will that suffice?
>
some kind of non-linear translation function from old to new
> At the next release I will attempt to use the init script in the zfs-fuse tarball instead of a Fedora/EPEL specific script. Most likely I will request changes :)
Fajar A. Nugraha
> On 01/30/2011 11:30 PM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>> On 2011-01-30, at 15:12, sgheeren wrote:
>>> On 01/30/2011 01:14 PM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>>>> It has been a while since I released a zfs-fuse package for Fedora/EPEL. The last was zfs-fuse-0.6.9-7.20100709git
>>>> From recent messages it seems 0.7.0 is not far away. If you would like any changes in the packaging for Fedora/EPEL, please let me know.
>>> Yes, Uwe, just the otherday this was brought to my attention. I believe
>>> your init script sets the oom adjust for zfs-fuse as well?
>>>
>>> http://zfs-fuse.net/issues/116
>>
>> So, I changed
>>
>> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_adj"
>>
>> to
>>
>> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj"
>>
>> Will that suffice?
>>
> I'm not sure, at least the text in the commit said that there should be
> some kind of non-linear translation function from old to new
yup,
something like
if [ -f "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj" ]; then
echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj"
else
echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_adj"
fi
>> At the next release I will attempt to use the init script in the zfs-fuse tarball instead of a Fedora/EPEL specific script. Most likely I will request changes :)
> Very good, I'm happy to oblige!
What is the latest pool version that zfs-fuse supports (whichever
branch that will be 0.7)? The last EPEL package was on 22, while
native zfs is at 28.
--
Fajar
Uwe Kubosch
On 2011-01-31, at 03:08, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:21 AM, sgheeren <sghe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/30/2011 11:30 PM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-30, at 15:12, sgheeren wrote:
>>>> On 01/30/2011 01:14 PM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>>>>> It has been a while since I released a zfs-fuse package for Fedora/EPEL. The last was zfs-fuse-0.6.9-7.20100709git
>>>>> From recent messages it seems 0.7.0 is not far away. If you would like any changes in the packaging for Fedora/EPEL, please let me know.
>>>> Yes, Uwe, just the otherday this was brought to my attention. I believe
>>>> your init script sets the oom adjust for zfs-fuse as well?
>>>> http://zfs-fuse.net/issues/116
>>>
>>> So, I changed
>>> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_adj"
>>> to
>>> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj"
>>> Will that suffice?
>> I'm not sure, at least the text in the commit said that there should be
>> some kind of non-linear translation function from old to new
> if [ -f "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj" ]; then
> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_score_adj"
> else
> echo -17 > "/proc/$PID/oom_adj"
> fi
Added to init script. Will appear in the next release.
Seth Heeren
of translation function. From the web:
oom-score = oom-base-score x 2^oom_adj
new tuning parameter mean)
oom-score = oom-base-score + oom_score_adj / (totalram +
totalswap)
Also, from http://lwn.net/Articles/396552/
Instead, a new tunable, /proc/pid/oom_score_adj, is added that
ranges from -1000 to +1000
I really don't have the time to find out the details here, but bluntly
replacing the filespecification is not going to cut it (why would
there even have been a change in the first place :))
Daniel Brooks
Uwe, do you keep a repository for this rpm? I'd like to take a look at it if I may.
Uwe Kubosch
Uwe, do you keep a repository for this rpm? I'd like to take a look at it if I may.
sgheeren
I'm currently in the process of releasing the 0.7.0 version (grab it
ahead of the fanfare here:
http://gitweb.zfs-fuse.net/?p=sehe;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master (of
course, the official's maint branch will be recommended for packaging,
but this branch is already correct for the release)
or in my ppa:
https://launchpad.net/~bugs-sehe/+archive/zfs-fuse/+packages
<https://launchpad.net/%7Ebugs-sehe/+archive/zfs-fuse/+packages>
Cheers,
Seth
Uwe Kubosch
On 2011-03-09, at 14:49, sgheeren wrote:
> Uwe, any news?
Huh? Did you wait for something from me :)
> I'm currently in the process of releasing the 0.7.0 version (grab it
> ahead of the fanfare here:
A bit pressed on time. Will not be able to look at it any time soon , I think. I can give access to the repository and packaging if someone want to speed things up.
> --
> To post to this group, send email to zfs-...@googlegroups.com
> To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
sgheeren
> On 2011-03-09, at 14:49, sgheeren wrote:
>
>> Uwe, any news?
> Huh? Did you wait for something from me :)
I hope you _did_ notice that I question the outcome of the OOM
discussion as it was 'hanging'. This is why I bumped this particular
thread :)
Once I get time, I might do the maths on it and you can just take it
from my upstart script. Meanwhile, I trust the 'legacy' OOM interface
>> I'm currently in the process of releasing the 0.7.0 version (grab it
>> ahead of the fanfare here:
> A bit pressed on time. Will not be able to look at it any time soon , I think. I can give access to the repository and packaging if someone want to speed things up.
Likewise here, no problem. In case anyone really craves RPMs in EPEL, I
think we will hear them here,
Thanks,
Seth
Uwe Kubosch
On 2011-03-12, at 01:08, sgheeren wrote:
> On 03/12/2011 12:08 AM, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>> On 2011-03-09, at 14:49, sgheeren wrote:
>>
>>> Uwe, any news?
>> Huh? Did you wait for something from me :)
> I'm not waiting. (I don't need RPMs...)
> I hope you _did_ notice that I question the outcome of the OOM
> discussion as it was 'hanging'. This is why I bumped this particular
> thread :)
Yes, I was waiting for someone to do the math work :)
> Once I get time, I might do the maths on it and you can just take it
> from my upstart script. Meanwhile, I trust the 'legacy' OOM interface
Good.
>>> I'm currently in the process of releasing the 0.7.0 version (grab it
>>> ahead of the fanfare here:
>> A bit pressed on time. Will not be able to look at it any time soon , I think. I can give access to the repository and packaging if someone want to speed things up.
> Likewise here, no problem. In case anyone really craves RPMs in EPEL, I
> think we will hear them here,
Fine by me. Just starting a new project at work, and it takes all my time.
sgheeren
> Fine by me. Just starting a new project at work, and it takes all my time.