Ok... I found it.
All of the writes go through ffs_write (including VOP_RECLAIM, so my
statement that VOP_RECLAIM couldn't handle things that vinvalbuf left
behind is obviously incorrect). Sometimes it worked, sometimes it paniced,
I started putting more deugging into it and I noticed the followi
The state was printed after the panic, yes.
If I understand the idea of softupdates correctly, I don't think its odd
this buffer wasn't even attempted to be written, it has b_dep defined, that
means those blocks should be written first, right?
Also, I was just able to reproduce th
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:21:20PM -0400, David Cross wrote:
> (kgdb) up 5
> #5 0x804aafa1 in brelse (bp=0xfe00f77457d0) at buf.h:428
> 428 (*bioops.io_deallocate)(bp);
> Current language: auto; currently minimal
> (kgdb) p/x *(struct buf *)0xfe00f77457d0
> $1
(kgdb) up 5
#5 0x804aafa1 in brelse (bp=0xfe00f77457d0) at buf.h:428
428 (*bioops.io_deallocate)(bp);
Current language: auto; currently minimal
(kgdb) p/x *(struct buf *)0xfe00f77457d0
$1 = {b_bufobj = 0xf80002e88480, b_bcount = 0x4000, b_caller1 = 0x0,
b
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 12:02:00PM -0400, David Cross wrote:
> Oh, whoops; how do I printout the buffer?
In kgdb, p/x *(struct buf *)address
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscr
Oh, whoops; how do I printout the buffer?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David Cross wrote:
> No kernel messages before (if there were I would have written this off a
> long time ago);
> And as of right now, this is probably the most fsck-ed filesystem on the
> planet!.. I have an 'image' that
No kernel messages before (if there were I would have written this off a
long time ago);
And as of right now, this is probably the most fsck-ed filesystem on the
planet!.. I have an 'image' that I am going on that is ggate mounted, so I
can access it in a bhyve VM to ease debuging so I am not crash
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 10:51:28AM -0400, David Cross wrote:
> Ok.. to reply to my own message, I using ktr and debugging printfs I have
> found the culprit.. but I am still at a loss to 'why', or what the
> appropriate fix is.
>
> Lets go back to the panic (simplified)
>
> #0 0x8043f160
Ok.. to reply to my own message, I using ktr and debugging printfs I have
found the culprit.. but I am still at a loss to 'why', or what the
appropriate fix is.
Lets go back to the panic (simplified)
#0 0x8043f160 at kdb_backtrace+0x60
#1 0x80401454 at vpanic+0x124
#2 0x80
Ok, I have been trying to trace this down for awhile..I know quite a bit
about it.. but there's a lot I don't know, or I would have a patch. I have
been trying to solve this on my own, but bringing in some outside
assistance will let me move on with my life.
First up: The stacktrace (from a debu
TABLE sources from
> yesterday 10 Apr 2012.
>
> Every thing worked well. I was able to boot and run off 9.0-STABLE my
> apps worked ; So I wanted to swap out soft updates for journaed soft
> updates.
>
> The box used 3 UFS slices that were glabled. Note root and var had
> softu
run off 9.0-STABLE my
apps worked ; So I wanted to swap out soft updates for journaed soft
updates.
The box used 3 UFS slices that were glabled. Note root and var had
softupdates but
/usr/local/mysql/data did not
# DeviceMountpoint FStype Options DumpPass#
/dev
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:29:26 +0200, Dan Naumov
wrote:
I have the following setup:
A single consumer-grade 2tb SATA disk: Western Digital Green (model
WDC WD20EADS-00R6B0). This disk is setup like this:
16gb root partition with UFS2 + softupdates, containing mostly static
things:
/bin
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:29:26AM +0300, Dan Naumov wrote:
> I have the following setup:
>
> A single consumer-grade 2tb SATA disk: Western Digital Green (model
> WDC WD20EADS-00R6B0). This disk is setup like this:
>
> 16gb root partition with UFS2 + softupdates, containing mo
I have the following setup:
A single consumer-grade 2tb SATA disk: Western Digital Green (model
WDC WD20EADS-00R6B0). This disk is setup like this:
16gb root partition with UFS2 + softupdates, containing mostly static things:
/bin /boot /etc /root /sbin /usr /var and such
a 1,9tb non-redundant
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Pete French wrote:
> > All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD
> > ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve
> > stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it
> > safe to give to ZFS?
>
> If y
> All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD
> ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve
> stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it
> safe to give to ZFS?
If you are on amd64 then don't tune it, it will tune itself. If you
All the ZFS tuning guides for FreeBSD (including one on the FreeBSD
ZFS wiki) have recommended values between 64M and 128M to improve
stability, so that what I went with. How much of my max kmem is it
safe to give to ZFS?
- Dan Naumov
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Isn
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:34:02 +0200, Dan Naumov
wrote:
I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input--
--Random
In the last episode (Jun 17), Dan Naumov said:
> I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
> something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
>
> on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
>
> ---Sequential Output ---Sequential I
wrote:
I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block
I am wondering if the numbers I am seeing is something expected or is
something broken somewhere. Output of bonnie -s 1024:
on UFS2 + SoftUpdates:
---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:53, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
> > Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> > > o
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
[...] If so, this would be an advantage over SU, as
it does surely not use the new introduced BIO_FLUSH. [...]
Soft-updates doesn't handle disk write caches at all.
you're totaly right. I was refering to the assumption of SU that the
drive cache will not "lie
Teufel wrote:
> so when the crash occur exactly when BIO_FLUSH is sent or while the
> cache is flushing, there is still no corruption possbile?
A small additional note ... If there's a _hardware_ crash
(e.g. power outage) which causes a track write of the HDD
to be interrupted, you will get co
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 05:28:49PM +0200, Teufel wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >>>- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> >>>on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> >>>media, and those are n
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
Not gjournal, because
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
> Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> > on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> > media,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:47:50PM +0200, Teufel wrote:
> Well, thats why i actually don't find journaling filesystems very sexy.
> So the question is, if it is still safe to use fsck on a gjournal
> enabled FS ?
Well, if you just want to check, you can take a snapshot and run fsck -n
on it. Th
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corru
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:34, Christian Laursen wrote:
> Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> > on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> > media, and those
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>
>> Journaling also needs writes to be done in the correct order. You don't
>> want to write the real update to the filesystem before you have made sure
>
> Ok, but journal is (or should be) protected by checksumming or some
> kind
Christian Laursen wrote:
Journaling also needs writes to be done in the correct order. You don't
want to write the real update to the filesystem before you have made sure
Ok, but journal is (or should be) protected by checksumming or some kind
of record markers, so invalid entries are not rep
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>
>> However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
>> about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
>
> Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
> same kind that can
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>> Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
>>> on some assumptions about when the data is physically written
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
same kind that can generally come from on-drive caches?
___
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on th
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
sting new code while bgfsck is still running, and normal fsck
takes too long
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to media,
and those are not always valid today
- every now and then there appear som
I've just watched over some of the gjournal threads.
My main question now is, whats the difference from gjournal and
softupdates in case of reability ?
Wasn't SU design to make the use of journals needless? As far i
remember, SU was designed to write in the cache in such a way, that
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:44:07PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> > After fsck telling me it's all ok, when I reboot (even after being up a
> > couple of minutes), I still get the same messages now.
>
> Hmm... Could you please confirm that the final vnode sync has been
> completed?
Hmm, I'm not sure...
be impossible without power loss ? Or is it inherent to
> > > > SMP that the machine can crash on a process on CPU #0 while CPU #1 is
> > > > updating disk structures ?
> >
> > Are you using IDE disk driver? If so, having "hw.ata.wc=0" in your
> > /boo
Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Are you using IDE disk driver? If so, having "hw.ata.wc=0" in your
>/boot/loader.conf would help the SoftUpdates situation.
This won't help in the case when the kernel crashes; this (ugly)
workaround only
updating disk structures ?
>
> Are you using IDE disk driver? If so, having "hw.ata.wc=0" in your
> /boot/loader.conf would help the SoftUpdates situation.
Nope, it's a SuperMicro 6013P with onboard dual ahd with 3 seagate
(yeah, I know, not a good combinatio
t this be impossible without power loss ? Or is it inherent to
> > SMP that the machine can crash on a process on CPU #0 while CPU #1 is
> > updating disk structures ?
Are you using IDE disk driver? If so, having "hw.ata.wc=0" in your
/boot/loader.conf would help the SoftUpdates s
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote:
> Having enough opportunities to do crash recovery with kern/83375 open
> and some of my services not yet moved back to FreeBSD 4, I noticed that
> often it crashes just after (or perhaps during) mirroring of a directory
> tree. The mirr
Hi.
Having enough opportunities to do crash recovery with kern/83375 open
and some of my services not yet moved back to FreeBSD 4, I noticed that
often it crashes just after (or perhaps during) mirroring of a directory
tree. The mirroring involves creating a directory with in it 80
subdirectories
PDATE INCONSISTENCY
** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity
** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts
** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups
10092 files, 123147 used, 366123 free (5491 frags, 45079 blocks, 1.1%
fragmentation)
Does anybody know why this error can happen? And how do I solve the
missing"."?
I
|
| 243085 files, 1465923 used, 274252 free (102444 frags, 21476 blocks, 5.9%
fragmentation)
|
| * FILE SYSTEM MARKED CLEAN *
|
| * FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *
Turns out the missing two files ended up in lost+found.
Is this a failure mode that is allowed to
Interrupts may not be
functioning.
13:29:04 ahc0: Recovery Initiated
13:29:16 Kernel Free SCB list: 9 4 15 20
13:29:17 sg[7] - Addr 0x3bea000 : Length 4096
13:29:18 ahc0: Issued Channel A Bus Reset. 25 SCBs aborted
As the machine rebooted up, it remained in single user due to
a softupdates inc
Scott Long wrote:
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
I posted about softupdate problems on a SCSI system with DISABLED WRITE
CACHE, on a somewhat flakey Micropolis drive that froze and caused
massive ffs+softupdates corruption in February 2004 (on FreeBSD 4
though), see http
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
I posted about softupdate problems on a SCSI system with DISABLED WRITE
CACHE, on a somewhat flakey Micropolis drive that froze and caused
massive ffs+softupdates corruption in February 2004 (on FreeBSD 4
though), see http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi
Matthias Andree wrote:
I posted about softupdate problems on a SCSI system with DISABLED WRITE
CACHE, on a somewhat flakey Micropolis drive that froze and caused
massive ffs+softupdates corruption in February 2004 (on FreeBSD 4
though), see http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m38yj15m59.fsf>
< said:
> I posted about softupdate problems on a SCSI system with DISABLED WRITE
> CACHE, on a somewhat flakey Micropolis drive that froze and caused
If the hardware is broken, all bets are off, soft updates or no.
-GAWollman
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ma
rarely, if ever, see softupdate
> problems on my SCSI development systems, but that might just be
> coincidence.
I posted about softupdate problems on a SCSI system with DISABLED WRITE
CACHE, on a somewhat flakey Micropolis drive that froze and caused
massive ffs+softupdates corruption in Febr
reboot, fsck -p complained about an unexpected softupdates
inconsistency on the / file system and put me into single user
mode, the manual fsck / then asked me to agree to increasing a link
count from 21 to 22 (and later to fix the summary, which I consider
a non-issue). A subsequent fsck -p / ended
gt; FreeBSD 5-STABLE system.
> >
> > Upon reboot, fsck -p complained about an unexpected softupdates
> > inconsistency on the / file system and put me into single user
> > mode, the manual fsck / then asked me to agree to increasing a link
> > count from 21 to 22 (and later
Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, this in theory should not happen. YOu could have caught it right at
> the instance that it was sending a transaction out to disk, or you could
> have caught an edge case that isn't understood yet. Unfortunately, ATA
> drives also cannot be trusted to
softupdates
inconsistency on the / file system and put me into single user mode, the
manual fsck / then asked me to agree to increasing a link count from 21
to 22 (and later to fix the summary, which I consider a non-issue). A
subsequent fsck -p / ended with no abnormality detected.
Unfortunately, I haven&#
Greetings,
out of fun and to investigate claims about alleged bgfsck resource
hogging (which I could not reproduce) posted to
news:de.comp.os.unix.bsd, I pressed the reset button on a live FreeBSD
5-STABLE system.
Upon reboot, fsck -p complained about an unexpected softupdates
inconsistency on
I have had simular experiances with this very phenominom under 3.X, although I
have only ever seen it when you fill the partition ie 101% used and it only
happens on partitions with softupdates.
On Wednesday 05 March 2003 16:53, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> I rebooted my server 20hrs ago,
In case anyone wants to dig into this...
4.7-STABLE #0: Mon Dec 23 15:41:17 CET 2002 using softupdates.
/dev/ad2a is a 120GB hard drive, 96GB were in use. 75 of these 96GB were
rm -rf'ed. The rm command returned quickly since the 75GB were stored
in few big files. The box crashed durin
TED]>,
Ronald Klop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: softupdates: any way to force sync?
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:38:14 -0400
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-ASK-Info: Confirmed by User
[Mr. McKusick-- Sorry for including you mid-discus
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ronald Klop wrote:
> The following sysctl's define the delay before things are written to
> disk with softupdates. I think they work in realtime and setting them to
> 3,2,1 for a little time wil sync the disk faster. But wil make the
> caching less e
The following sysctl's define the delay before things are written to
disk with softupdates. I think they work in realtime and setting them to
3,2,1 for a little time wil sync the disk faster. But wil make the
caching less efficient. So play with it for a while.
kern.filedela
ode where it is panicing.
:> :That would be nice.
:> :This night the box did not crash, I left it with softupdates turned off
:> :and did not use its modem and pppd. So it has 15 hours uptime :-)
:> That's good. I would leave softupdates turned off until Kirk gets
:> bac
able' then rebooted again. POST tested memory slowly
and found no errors. Now I turned softupdates off and will
not use pppd tonight. Let's see.
Perhaps, there was a bad moment for cvsup? Should I cvsup again
or it will be better to stick to this configuration and try collecting
more crash
OOT #FFS usable as root device [keep this!]
options SOFTUPDATES #Enable FFS soft updates support
options MFS #Memory Filesystem
options MD_ROOT #MD is a potential root device
options NFS #Network
idn't have
softupdates, so inconclusive.)
* GENERIC kernel is sufficient to reproduce
* Unmounting the FS and fscking it doesn't *seem* to show
the problem up. fscking the filesystem after remounting
readonly does cause breakage. Unmounting, remounting
readonly, and fscking seems
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Nils Holland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:03:09PM +, Gavin Atkinson stood up and spoke:
> >
> > I was running buildworld, with /usr/src and /usr/obj on seperate
> > partitions, both with softupdates on. I have the problematic VIA
> >
So, to boil everything down, I have 1 question:
On a workstation LAPTOP (IDE, low load, etc), does it make more sense to use
softupdates, write caching, or both?
jm
--
My other computer is your windows box.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stabl
Basically write-caching becomes irrelevant when you have tags, because
the host does not have to wait for a write to complete before starting
the next one. When IDE tags work, write caching no longer matters.
Without IDE tags you have to turn write caching on in order to get
Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> On 20-Sep-2001 Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> > For what I heard, I concluded that we shouldn't use softupdates with write
> > cache turned on. The first time that I tried this I loose a lot of work
> > due to a pow
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:18:32 +0930 (CST)
> From: "Daniel O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On 20-Sep-2001 Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> > For what I heard, I concluded that we shouldn't use softupdates with write
Last night one of our servers panicked with the message "ffs_blkfree:
bad size." The kernel is from early March 4 (PST).
Below is a backtrace and the versions of the files in /sys/ufs/ffs. I
have a kernel dump for anyone interested in looking into this problem;
email me and I'll get it to you.
H
corruption that fsck can't see but causes
subsequent problems.
2) There is some vinum interaction that happens to have been arisen
around this time (the filesystem has been growing gradually from
25% full when the system was commissioned in November to 50% now)
3) There is some softupdates pr
ome risk
> with it, so I'd not recommend it for /.
On the contrary - if you have a fairly standard setup with /tmp on the
root partition, you will benefit a lot from enabling softupdates on
it. As to the risks, nowadays I'd say the odds of the softupdates code
exhibiting a noticeable b
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * flag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001215 14:28] wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001211 11:50] wrote:
> > > > Hi, is there anythi
On 15-Dec-00 flag wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001211 11:50] wrote:
>> > Hi, is there anything wrong with enabling softupdates
>> > on my / partition?
>>
>> Yes and no.
>
:
:So to keep Softupdates active on all boot ups, you have to re-execute
:"tunefs -n enable /" or "tunefs -n enable /usr"? Otherwise its not active
:on the partition?
:
:Jorge
Once you turn softupdates on with tunefs, it's on for good. Of course,
your kernel ha
Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Briefly, they are a way of combining writes to disk so that fewer
> writes happen for meta data.
There's also the "and ordering writes so that the disk is left in a
consistent state after each write, preventing filesystem damage in a
crash without the sl
On Wednesday, 18 October 2000 at 12:57:01 +0200, Roman Shterenzon wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm really sorry, I don't know what mangles it. If it's still mangled I
> can post it somewhere on the web.
No, the text is now correct.
> If it was fixed after 4.1-RELEASE, please let me know, I'll have to drive
>
I am thinking of enabling softupdates but have read in
the questions/stable mail listing archives that
enabling
softupdates when the hard drive has write cache
enabled
could cause trouble that would not normally be
experienced.
Does anyone know if there is any truth to that? Is
disabling write
Mike Pritchard writes:
>I finally figured out my problem after quite a few reboots, and
>forcing a few crash dumps.
>It turns out that I had an old linux_base port installed, and when the
>/usr/sbin/linux script ran /usr/compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig the version
>I had, for whatever reason, wound u
a problem. I assume that changes are being done for
3.5 release - regardless something is fishy in cvs/cvsup land and/or
the instructions need to get updated. Could somebody with more of a
clue check this out? Anybody with a setup like mine (4.0-STABLE) who
does a CVSUP and kernel build will lose s
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Mike Harding wrote:
>
> I just did a 'cvsup' of 4.0-RELENG and the soft update links in
> /usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs got deleted. Created them again, ran cvsup
> again, and they got deleted again. Anyone know what's going on?
>
> - Mike H.
Did the files just disapear,
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:01:34PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 22-Jun-00 Mike Harding wrote:
> > I have been doing cvsup at least weekly for at long time and this is
> > the first time that this has happened.
>
> Hmm :-/
>
> I guess it could have s
On 22-Jun-00 Mike Harding wrote:
> I have been doing cvsup at least weekly for at long time and this is
> the first time that this has happened.
Hmm :-/
I guess it could have something to do with the softupdates commit but I doubt
it..
NFI then really, sorry.
---
Daniel O'Conn
I have been doing cvsup at least weekly for at long time and this is
the first time that this has happened.
- Mike H.
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:48:04 +0930 (CST)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Daniel O'Connor" <[
On 22-Jun-00 Mike Harding wrote:
> I just did a 'cvsup' of 4.0-RELENG and the soft update links in
> /usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs got deleted. Created them again, ran cvsup
> again, and they got deleted again. Anyone know what's going on?
Probably because you told cvsup it should delete things it d
I just did a 'cvsup' of 4.0-RELENG and the soft update links in
/usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs got deleted. Created them again, ran cvsup
again, and they got deleted again. Anyone know what's going on?
- Mike H.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the b
Hi
Some time ago I was able to tunefs -n enable /dev/rootfs + fast reset
button, but now with 4.0 it does not work...
any ideas ?
L.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > Not really. You could just use async updates instead of softupdates.
> > Or an OS that uses async updates. Write caching metadata is always faster
> > than re-ordering it intelligently.
>
>
Title: RE: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates...
Actually RAID 0 is disk striping with *NO* redundancy. RAID *1* is mirroring.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel C. Sobral [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 6:31 PM
To: Brad Knowle
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : How many instances of postmark are you running? I used 4 separate
> :instances (you must run them in separate directories).
>
> Well, you didn't say that! :-) I'm running one. I'll start up
> another couple to match your test.
Actual
: How many instances of postmark are you running? I used 4 separate
:instances (you must run them in separate directories).
Well, you didn't say that! :-) I'm running one. I'll start up
another couple to match your test.
: How fast are your disks? I used an external RAID-5 array t
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :FYI: On hub.freebsd.org (the freebsd mailing list server), if we activate
> :softupdates on the disk containing the postfix spool, the machine reboots
> :(silently if I recall correctly) within 5 minutes of postfix starting up.
> :
>
:
:FYI: On hub.freebsd.org (the freebsd mailing list server), if we activate
:softupdates on the disk containing the postfix spool, the machine reboots
:(silently if I recall correctly) within 5 minutes of postfix starting up.
:
:This is a much smaller system of course, with smaller memory and
I'm trying to find some information on reasonable settings for
debug.max_softdeps on a recent FreeBSD-stable system.
It seems that if you have a machine that is able to generate disk IO
much faster than can be handled, has a large amount of RAM (and therefore
debug.max_softdeps is large), an
nce in the manpage.
I've seen it on some IDE drives, and not on some other IDE drives...in each
case softupdates was indeed enabled.
I've heard from others on the list that the error message is harmless,
although no one said exactly what was going on.
--Dan
** The thing I like most a
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
