Re: Graceful failure instead of panicking in kmem_malloc

2008-01-09 Thread Bharma Ji
>Is there any way to make the system log and then gracefully shut off while >guaranteeing that the logging/shutdown procedure won't also run out memory >somewhere? For logging procedure, I am hoping that by keeping some memory aside, I should be able to guarantee that the procedure will not run out

Re: Graceful failure instead of panicking in kmem_malloc

2008-01-09 Thread Mike
Bharma Ji wrote: > Is there any way to make the system log and then gracefully shut off instead > of panicking? Is there any way to make the system log and then gracefully shut off while guaranteeing that the logging/shutdown procedure won't also run out memory somewhere? _

Re: Re: kernel time sync enabled

2008-01-09 Thread timo
thanks, I have repail it 2008-01-09 _ Best Regard Timo msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: https://stand.eicp.net 发件人： Jeremy Chadwick 发送时间： 2008-01-09 19:47

Re: kernel time sync enabled

2008-01-09 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 06:51:45PM +0800, timo wrote: > anyone can tell me what's the meaning? > > Jan 9 01:02:20 server1 ntpd[46085]: kernel time sync enabled 6001 > Jan 9 01:19:23 server1 ntpd[46085]: kernel time sync enabled 2001 > Jan 9 01:53:34 server1 ntpd[46085]: kernel time sync enabled

kernel time sync enabled

2008-01-09 Thread timo
hi, I'am running freebsd6.2 with apache now in /var/log/message has follow info. anyone can tell me what's the meaning? Jan 9 01:01:02 server1 sshd[4345]: error: channel 0: chan_read_failed for istate 3 Jan 9 01:01:02 server1 sshd[4345]: error: channel 0: chan_read_failed for istate 3 Jan 9

Re: Graceful failure instead of panicking in kmem_malloc

2008-01-09 Thread Kris Kennaway
Joshua Isom wrote: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Bharma Ji wrote: Thanks for the response. I am hoping to keep some memory aside specifically for handling out of memory allocation situations. Yes the real fix is to avoid out of memory allocation. Thanks for the patch. Will try that. As a first

Re: Graceful failure instead of panicking in kmem_malloc

2008-01-09 Thread Heiko Wundram (Beenic)
Am Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2008 10:29:43 schrieb Joshua Isom: > Why not try to take out some user processes? Going with a combination > of process priority and memory usage, it should at least be more > tolerable than a panic. Ahemm. No. That's not tolerable in real world conditions. Have you ever ha

Re: Graceful failure instead of panicking in kmem_malloc

2008-01-09 Thread Joshua Isom
On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Bharma Ji wrote: Thanks for the response. I am hoping to keep some memory aside specifically for handling out of memory allocation situations. Yes the real fix is to avoid out of memory allocation. Thanks for the patch. Will try that. As a first cut I am just t