David Holland wrote:
> There is at least one known structural problem where atime/mtime
> updates do not get applied to buffers (but are instead saved up
> internally) so they don't get written out by the syncer.
>
> We believe this is what causes those unmount-time writes, or at least
> many of
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
>>
>> 2. I'm a little bit surprised that the filesystem was as much of a
>> mess as it was.
>
> I'm not. You mounted the filesystem async and had a crash. With the
> filesy
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
> My Linux experience, and this is strictly gut feel -- I have no
> hard evidence to back this up -- tells me that if this had happened
> on a Linux system with an async, unjournaled filesystem, the
> filesystem would have survived.
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
>
> 2. I'm a little bit surprised that the filesystem was as much of a
> mess as it was.
I'm not. You mounted the filesystem async and had a crash. With the
filesystem mounted async *nothing* pushes out most metadata updates,
with th
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Donald Allen wrote:
[deleted]
> catastrophic consequences in the very rare case of someone doing what
> I did (mounting async, doing a lot of writing followed by a system
> crash). I'm trying to make the argument that there could be a problem
> that is benign in 9
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:40:06AM +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Elad Efrat wrote:
> > What the new API allows is interaction between secmodels that are
> > built by people who are not part of NetBSD and don't want their
> > secmodel to become part of Ne
Interesting situation. I agree that after 30s to a minute that most
things should have been flushed.
As a side note, it would be interesting to benchmark async vs wapbl.
I have never really looked, but it has always seemed that it would be
nice to have:
statistics visibility into the number
I recently installed NetBSD 5.1 on an old Thinkpad T41 that I use for
experimentation. I installed it with a single, monolithic filesystem,
which I mounted async,noatime. Yes, I'm fully aware that's dangerous
and was aware of it at the time. But I have a long history of
running Linux systems w
(removing Elad from CC)
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 01:27:22 +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
secmodel_suser doesn't know about securelevel. secmodel_securelevel
doesn't know about root. Complete decoupling between models.
Yep. What about secmodel_extensions?
Okay, let's put that differently: enablin
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 07:33:35PM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:22:33 +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
> >That is by design. The idea behind splitting the decision process
> >into
> >separate secmodels is to decouple the models and the decision making.
> I can't see how --
10 matches
Mail list logo
