On 2000-Aug-03 15:20:02 -0700, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> Not quite. softupdates is actually more robust than a normal FS >> mount (and far more robust than async). > Not likely. I personally pushed softupdates over the edge before (see >archives). In my case, the amount of unwritten metadata filled up all >kernel space. The filesystem was recoverable, but fsck filled up >lost+found several times (that should be considered a fsck bug that wasn't >possible to expose without softupdates). It was rather messy. That definitely is (or was) a bug in softupdates - it's not supposed to behave that way. I presume you're referring to the postmark test you were running last December on 3.4-STABLE. Looking at the CVS logs, the core softupdates code would have been 1.34.2.3, which is now nearly a year old. Have you tried repeating your tests on a more version of softupdates (5-CURRENT or 4-STABLE)? It looks like Kirk doesn't MFC many of the changes he makes in -CURRENT, but there were are a lot of softupdates fixes in 4-STABLE compared to 3-STABLE. (From what I can see, there has only been one real bugfix in -CURRENT since 4-STABLE branched - that related to a panic if user quotas were exceeded). Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
