On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:55:22AM -0500, Ensel Sharon wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > hmmm...the cut and paste of that loud warning was from a 6.0-RELEASE man > > > page ... if I need to be CURRENT to get the updated man page, do I also > > > need to be CURRENT to get the safe null_mount code itself ? > > > > > > Or is 6.0-RELEASE safe ? (re: null_mount) > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > 6.0-RELEASE is also safe. I only just removed the warning the other > > day, but I'll also be merging it to 6.0-STABLE. > > > Ok, that is good to know. > > However, I continue to see instability on this system with the 2000+ > null_mounts. Are there any system tunables / sysctls / kernel > configurations that I should be studying or experimenting with that are > relevant to this ? > > Perhaps looking more broadly, are there any tunables related to large > numbers of mounted filesystems _period_, not just null mounts ?
Not that I know of. You'll need to proceed down the debugging route I mentioned. > For what it is worth, the system also has several mdconfig'd and mounted > snapshots (more than 5, less than 10). Further, all of the null mounts > mount space from within a mounted snapshot into normal filesystem space. > With all the snapshots mounted and all the null mounts mounted, I find > that commencing an rsync from the filesystem that all these exist on locks > up the machine. I can still ping it, but it refuses all connections. It > requires a power cycle. > > Comments ? Snapshots are a much more likely cause of system instability than nullfs mounts, IMO. Kris
pgpezTgvhDTzL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
