On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:02:38 +0200
Hartmann, O. ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
... and here I am again with SU+J on my box ;-)
Tomorrow, I will perform this step on all servers. I guess it's a
worth having.
Most definitely. When rebooting after a forced power-down (due to that
darned
On 2011-08-31 20:02, Hartmann, O. wrote:
On 08/31/11 19:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hartmann, O.
ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
on
UFS2 filesystems.
Agreed. Added to http
Niclas Zeising wrote:
Can you please detail a little more the steps you took to enable SU+J
and your experience with it? It sounds like a good start for a howto or
an inclusion in the handbook.
It's really simple...
You need a kernel compiled with
options SOFTUPDATES
with
options SOFTUPDATES # Enable FFS soft updates support
In single-user mode or unmounted filesystems:
tunefs -j enabledevice
Ian
Yes, it is really THAT SIMPLE. But after enabling SU+J, I ran a fsck
on the filesystem in
question and I was asked wether I want to enable journaling
Hello, O..
You wrote 1 сентября 2011 г., 20:06:21:
Once done, you can force on a non-important, big filesystem a crash. I
switched of one of my server boxes with a 3 TB harddrive for test purposes and
was amazed how fast, compared to unjournaled UFS2, the fsck now is performed.
Since *BSDs
I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
on
UFS2 filesystems. As I could see, SU+J is enlisted to be enabled by
default in 9.0-RELEASE. What is the status quo of that?
I've several active systems running UFS2 on their system disks while
data/home
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hartmann, O.
ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
on
UFS2 filesystems.
Agreed. Added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/DocsFor9x .
As I could see, SU+J is enlisted to be enabled by default
On 08/31/11 19:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hartmann, O.
ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
on
UFS2 filesystems.
Agreed. Added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/DocsFor9x .
Many thanks
Hi,
I found a difference of definition softdep_request_cleanup.
when SOFTUPDATES undefined softdep_request_cleanup take only two arguments.
Patch to fix this:
Index: sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c
===
--- sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Aleksandr Rybalko r...@dlink.ua wrote:
Hi,
I found a difference of definition softdep_request_cleanup.
when SOFTUPDATES undefined softdep_request_cleanup take only two arguments.
Patch to fix this:
Index: sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:32:12 -0400
Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Aleksandr Rybalko r...@dlink.ua
wrote:
Hi,
I found a difference of definition softdep_request_cleanup.
when SOFTUPDATES undefined softdep_request_cleanup take only two
arguments
This is from 5.2-BETA-20031127-JPSNAP.iso on a P4/800FSB/HT system:
Note: this was manually transcribed because of the nature of the bug
(installation failure), was unable to obtain a crash dump to be saved.
It's completely reproducible on every installation attempt *IFF*
softupdates is enabled
I found the bug that I introduced around the 29th of august. It is fixed
in ffs_softdep.c rev 1.143. Truely, most of the leg work was done by
tegge. I just produced and tested a patch. This completes a buildworld
with 128M of memory now, whereas before it just completed with 64m and
512m.
Hello,
Is this statement still valid?
ext3 is unsafe for maildir, and with softupdates, so is ffs.
http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0202/0358.html
Thanks,
--
Attila Nagy e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software Network (FSN.HU) phone @work: +361 210
Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
Is this statement still valid?
ext3 is unsafe for maildir, and with softupdates, so is ffs.
http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0202/0358.html
Yes,
It's also true that any form of write-caching is unsafe, so disable
the caches on your SCSI and ATA hard drives. Simply
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
Is this statement still valid?
ext3 is unsafe for maildir, and with softupdates, so is ffs.
http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0202/0358.html
The statement is FUD; this is a topic that mailer people love to
complain about. It's only true
Hello,
Today -current, 100% reproducable.
Script started on Wed Mar 26 18:17:44 2003
golf# gdb kernel.2603 -k vmcore.29
GNU gdb 5.2.1 (FreeBSD)
Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or
Nuno Teixeira wrote:
I understand the basic concept of the folowing techs: softupdates, disk
write cache and ata tags.
My question is:
It is safe to use softupdates + write cache + ata tags (IBM disk)?
I read someware that it not safe to use softupdate + write cache
(without
Hi,
Write cacheing is automatically enabled if tagged queueing is enabled
and supported by the disk, so I doubt you're seeing any improvement at
all.
I must admit: My statements are based on experience with SCSI Tagged Queuing
and SCSI Write Cache. I hope I'm correct if I assume that the
Matthias Schuendehuette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I consider it unnecessary to use WriteCache if TaggedQueuing is enabled
and working.
(The performace gain of WriteCache and TaggedQueuing is more or less the
same, the combination of both adds less than 10% of performance and you
shouldn't
Hello to all,
I understand the basic concept of the folowing techs: softupdates, disk
write cache and ata tags.
My question is:
It is safe to use softupdates + write cache + ata tags (IBM disk)?
I read someware that it not safe to use softupdate + write cache
(without ata tags
Hi,
Is it safe to use softupdates + write cache + ata tags (IBM disk)?
The summary of *my* experience and knowledge is:
It is considered *unsave* to use Soft Updates with WriteCache enabled.
I consider it unnecessary to use WriteCache if TaggedQueuing is enabled
and working.
(The performace
Just got this panic under CURRENT:
[... 21 frames after the panic removed ...]
#22 0xc02494fc in softdep_disk_io_initiation (bp=0x100)
at ../../../ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c:3453
#23 0xc01df5ad in cluster_wbuild (vp=0xc2f457c4, size=16384, start_lbn=11,
len=3) at buf.h:408
#24 0xc01d980c in
OR Just got this panic under CURRENT:
OR [... 21 frames after the panic removed ...]
OR #22 0xc02494fc in softdep_disk_io_initiation (bp=0x100)
OR at ../../../ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c:3453
[ ...snip...]
looks simulate to kern/42277 and kern/42235
--
VAMPIRO-RIPN
http://vampiro.rootshell.ru
To
softupdates (which remains relatively fixed between -stable and
-current tests). There's nothing wrong with softupdates.
#!/bin/tcsh -f
#
# (all tests run on a DELL2550 2xCPUx/1.1GHz P3s)
cd /usr/src
mv ~dillon/bwtest.out ~dillon/bwtest.out.bak
( /usr/bin/time -l make -j 5 buildworld ) ~dillon
I have a system running -CURRENT from 7th May and it panic'd over the
weekend:
panicstr: bwrite: buffer is not busy???
panic messages:
---
panic: free: address 0xccc792c0(0xccc79000) has not been allocated.
syncing disks... panic: bwrite: buffer is not busy???
Uptime: 10d8h49m19s
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:52:06AM -0500, a little birdie told me
that Dan Nelson remarked
In the last episode (Jul 06), David Scheidt said:
I've dodged that problem by SIGSTOPing installworld a couple times during
the /sbin install, waiting for softupdates to catchup, and then SIGCONTing
As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it was
unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to go back in
the water there, now?
Cheers,
Ben
Benjamin P. Grubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint: EDE9 A88F 3BCC 514A F310 FEFB
In the last episode (Jul 05), Benjamin P. Grubin said:
As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it
was unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to
go back in the water there, now?
The 2 drawbacks with SU are
1 - You can't immediately reuse
From: Benjamin P. Grubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:46:54 -0400
As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it was
unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to go back in
the water there, now?
Well, despite the warnings, I've been
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Dan Nelson wrote:
:In the last episode (Jul 05), Benjamin P. Grubin said:
: As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it
: was unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to
: go back in the water there, now?
:
:The 2 drawbacks
In the last episode (Jul 06), David Scheidt said:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Dan Nelson wrote:
:In the last episode (Jul 05), Benjamin P. Grubin said:
: As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it
: was unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to
: go
* Jeremiah Gowdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010531 17:57] wrote:
I have been told that the OpenBSD code that is supposed to speed up some
types of file system access up to 60x, has been committed to -current on
4/30. I'm wondering if there's any idea when it will be committed to
-stable? Are their
I have been told that the OpenBSD code that is supposed to speed up some
types of file system access up to 60x, has been committed to -current on
4/30. I'm wondering if there's any idea when it will be committed to
-stable? Are their any stability issues with the code?
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:18:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Another problem I'm having in -current right now is with softupdates. Wh=
en
the system panic'ed the first time, it came up ok and fsck'ed fine with no
apparent loss of data. However, during the fsck it complained bitterly
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:18:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Another problem I'm having in -current right now is with softupdates. When
the system panic'ed the first time, it came up ok and fsck'ed fine with no
apparent loss of data. However, during the fsck it complained bitterly
about
Another problem I'm having in -current right now is with softupdates. When
the system panic'ed the first time, it came up ok and fsck'ed fine with no
apparent loss of data. However, during the fsck it complained bitterly
about my superblocks, and when it was done and the system booted
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this case, it might be better to just turn
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David O'Brien" writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get s
nds _why_
it happens, but that doesn't make enyone any more comfortable about
using softupdates on their root partition.
I don't think it has anything to do with reliability.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
tdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by default and let
Problem is many still feel it should not be used on / .
Why not ?
Probably because of the behavior when a softupdates-enabled filesystem
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get s
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
There's always the 'nosoftdep' mount option. It's also possible to
enable it by default on everything except the root filesystem, but
that's a [minor] POLA violation.
I fail to see what is wrong with defaulting to `off'.
--
--
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
There's always the 'nosoftdep' mount option. It's also possible to
enable it by default on everything except the root filesystem, but
that's a [minor] POLA violation.
I fail to see
Are there any issues/plans to let users enable softupdates from inside of
sysinstall ? Softupdates are already enabled in the GENERIC kernel, but to
turn them on you have to run tunefs with the filesystem unmounted. Too
often I find myself doing an onsite install then doing all my customization
From: James FitzGibbon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:19:51 -0500
Are there any issues/plans to let users enable softupdates from inside of
sysinstall ?
No "plans", but it's certainly something which could be done.
If this
* Jordan Hubbard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010310 14:52]:
H. OK, you intrigued me enough by this that I just went ahead and
did it in -current. :) Let me know what you think, come tomorrow's
snapshot.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I love FreeBSD
I've got a box that is in desperate
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:51:54AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
I think this is really the only place to do it, just to ease
confusion. You also wouldn't need to put superblock-frobbing code
into sysinstall, just bundle tunefs into the mfsroot.
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug that newfs
didn't gain that functionality when it was added to tunefs.
I wrote a patch to do this some
From: "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:43:52 -0800
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug that newfs
d
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
From: "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:43:52 -0800
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
Is Paul going to commit his, or can I take this on and commit the ones
posted?
--
-- David ([EMAIL
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
Is Paul going to commit his, or can I take this on and commit
ove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
Paul tweaked it to be backwards compatable for -stable so that it didn't
require people to update their fstab. You can still use the softdep option
in the mount flag to enable softupdates, but existing file systems would
remain in softdep mode if the
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by default and let
those who don't want it somewhere use "noso
At 11:51 AM -0800 3/10/01, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
H. OK, you intrigued me enough by this that I just went
ahead and did it in -current. :) Let me know what you think,
come tomorrow's snapshot.
Ooo. Might this be MFC-able before 4.3 goes out the door?
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:51:46PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Are you talking about se's patches to make softdep a mount option,
yes
The former isn't something you can just drop in. You'd have to decide
if softdep should be the default.
It defaults to what tunefs sets it to -- POLA.
If
Brad Knowles wrote:
At 7:36 PM + 2000/8/28, Alex Zepeda wrote:
Perhaps in a rush to get started, I've compiled and
been using a SMP kernel even before the second processor arrives. This
has worked fine, however I've gotten some rather weird hangs and
of the 2nd processor. It
boots up and runs fine.
Before pointing any fingers at softupdates, etc... I think that
the first thing I'd do on this machine is switch back to using a real
uniprocessor kernel, and then see if I could replicate the problems.
Yup, I've "fallen back to&
did before.. I'm sure it's not a cooling issue as the
sole CPU is staying below 35C.
However I'm curious:
* Are there any known issues with SMP and softupdates as of late?
* Is running one processor with an SMP kernel such a horrible idea (other
than performance wise)?
I'm glad I can run my
Hi,
I just got a softupdates related panic on my dual PPro during
buildworld. Sources from July, 4th. Build with -j4.
I'll keep the dump if there's any need.
#0 boot (howto=260) at ../../kern/kern_shutdown.c:303
#1 0xc0177a29 in panic (fmt=0xc0298c54 "from debugger")
at
I did some thinking about this, but no real code inspection, on a walk today-
I think what is occurring is that the list of directory updates is getting
refreshed from another process while the first process' list is being written
out. A quick hack would be to make sure this doesn't happen (no
[Redirected.]
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:28:31 +0100, Josef Karthauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not sure I have a feeling that there are softupdate problems
running under SMP. A number of times this year I've lost whole filesystems
on an SMP machines. :(
$ uptime
1:41PM up 34 days,
On Sat, Jun 24, 2000, Kirk McKusick wrote:
[snip]
Kirk, do you still want to keep things that way ?
Adrian
Yes, I do want it kept as a yunefs option.
[snip]
Your above proposal would work, though that is not how NetBSD
implemented it. I feel that it is a lot of extra
Slight problem: We've run out of mount option flags.
mount -o softupdates ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:54:26 +0200
From: Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h
ffs_softdep.c
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Brad Knowles
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
...
This has bitten a number of people who have turned softupdates on for
their root filesystems - and had installworld die.
There is a workaround for this:
Before running installworld start a shellscript in background with:
while true; do; sync
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the NetBSD version to work, what needs to happen is that the -osoftdep
flag needs to be propagated to the superblock so that after reboot, fsck
knows what to do. When it is next mounted, then update it to the new state.
From what I can tell from a
:
:Right, but if mounting with -osoftdep, does what a "tunefs -n enable"
:does (and vice versa) fsck will have that knowledge and the tunefs
:step would be un-needed.
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
Slight problem: We've run out of mount option flags.
On 2000-06-23 09:41 -0700, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slight problem: We've run out of mount option flags.
But there already ist MNT_SOFTDEP in sys/mount.h ...
#define MNT_SUIDDIR 0x0010 /* special handling of SUID on dirs */
#define MNT_SOFTDEP 0x0020
she wants to do
softupdates anyway, so just adding the support for softupdates to the
GENERIC kernel won't hurt anyone who don't want to turn that feature
on by default, except a little code increase.
Please take a look at what NetBSD just recently did:
http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/#sof
On Jun 22, 10:30am, Adrian Chadd wrote:
} Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep
}
} [shifting conversation to -current .. ]
}
} On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Anders Andersson wrote:
} on Tor, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:46:34pm +0900, Akinori -Aki- MUSHA wrote:
}
} Yes
On Jun 22, 2:21am, Don Lewis wrote:
} Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep
} On Jun 22, 10:30am, Adrian Chadd wrote:
} } Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep
} }
} } [shifting conversation to -current
At 10:30 AM +0200 2000/6/22, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I like this. Would anyone object if this was brought over from NetBSD ?
If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 10:30 AM +0200 2000/6/22, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I like this. Would anyone object if this was brought over from NetBSD ?
If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine.
Hmm, Kirk has valid points for leaving a softupdates filesystem
.
Hmm, Kirk has valid points for leaving a softupdates filesystem identified
by tunefs and not a mount option.
I do remember the discussion that lead to the requirement to enable
soft-updates with tunefs -n.
But I do not remember, why the soft-updates state could not be just set
in the local copy
for every partition that he or she wants to do
softupdates anyway, so just adding the support for softupdates to the
GENERIC kernel won't hurt anyone who don't want to turn that feature
on by default, except a little code increase.
Please take a look at what NetBSD just recently d
this this morning. There's a bit of a
mess in that directory. Somebody put the softupdates files into
/home/ncvs/src/sys/ufs/ffs manually on June 21. The files were
damaged -- each one had two RELENG_3 tags pointing to different
branches. That caused cvsup-master's cvsup jobs to start dying
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
[snip NetBSD making softupdates a mount option]
They obvioulsly DIDN'T discuss this with Kirk!
this is not what he wants and for good reason..
see the long discussion son this topic in the archives.
I've read the mail archives as to why
On 2000-Jun-22 15:22:12 -0500, Chris Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be a very good idea to enable softupdates by default
when a new filesystem is created. Modify newfs to do this and use
tunefs only if you want to _disable_ softupdates on a filesystem.
My only concern
deadlocks. Kirk has previously
recommended that softupdates not be enabled on a filesystem unless it
has sufficient free space to absorb about 1 minute's writes.
yup, this one is tricky, I tried to fix it by sleeping on the
potential of allocating a block, but even that isn't enough,
and had undesirable
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
[snip NetBSD making softupdates a mount option]
They obvioulsly DIDN'T discuss this with Kirk!
this is not what he wants and for good reason..
see the long discussion son this topic in the archives.
I've read
Peter Jeremy writes:
On 2000-Jun-22 15:22:12 -0500, Chris Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be a very good idea to enable softupdates by default
when a new filesystem is created. Modify newfs to do this and use
tunefs only if you want to _disable_ softupdates on a filesystem
The softupdates license has changed to 2-clause BSD-style with no
more restrictions on use.
The files were repocopied into their "natural" locations (sys/ufs/ffs)
so that symlinks are no longer required. This has been done retroactively
to all older branches that have the soft up
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Wemm writes
:
Because fsck is supposed to be able to do things more intelligently when it
knows the *previous* mount state, not the current state. ie: if a disk was
last mounted in softupdates mode, fsck is supposed to do stuff differently
(possibly doing
From Daemon news:
Kirk McKusick announced this morning at the USENIX keynote that the
softupdates code will now be available under a BSD license. Details
to follow.
So does this mean the whole shebang of find/read/link/recompile can finally
end? NetBSD got rid of this ages ago.
-George
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, George Michaelson wrote:
So does this mean the whole shebang of find/read/link/recompile can finally
end? NetBSD got rid of this ages ago.
Well Kirk McKusick has already committed the license change, a la:
From: Kevin Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Panic with userquota(softupdates?)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:55:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I keep getting panics in dqget(ufs_quota.c), with a -current
from a couple
I keep getting panics in dqget(ufs_quota.c), with a -current from a couple
of days ago. I think this might be softupdates related, since I can't make
it happen with softupdates turned off, although it's quite possible that it
has nothing to do with it. Does anyone have any idea what might
At 12:49 PM -0800 2000/2/17, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Depending on how temporary your temporary files are, it'd be
interesting to see if the 4.0 optimizations benifit your benchmark
and also remain stable.
Yup, that would be an interesting question.
Would it be possible for you
softupdates makes.
Nice!
buildworld -j16:
src obj on IDE disk (softupdates)
5676.29 real 7701.09 user 6133.60 sys
src obj on /noraid volume (1 drive, softupdates)
6053.86 real 7969.94 user 7601.81 sys
I'm not overly happy with these results. I suspect
/usr/src | cpio -pdum /target (~600k blocks):
/noraid (1 drive, softupdates):
901.70s real 6.32s user 135.73s system
944.64s real 6.40s user 135.49s system (*MAXACTIVE to 3)
buildworld -j16:
src obj on /noraid volume (1 drive, softupdates)
6053.86 real
) tests involving find|cpio of the source tree and then
buildworld -j16 on various vinum volumes.
So I thought I'd forward the results to current, for what it's worth.
The biggest (non)surprise is how big a difference softupdates makes.
Nice!
-- Parag Patel
"Idiocy: Never underest
on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it
with vinum and softupdates, but what I got did a pretty good job of
impressing me.
I won't quote the mail
, everything works as advertised.
While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it
with vinum and softupdates, but what I got did a pretty
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:14:20 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it
with vinum and softupdates
if softupdates is causing the problem or not?
softupdates usually panics when something goes wrong. If you are
getting a lockup rather then a panic it may not be softupdates.
I've been running continuous buildworlds on my test box for two days
so far without any problems
Just was presented the following panic by my FreeBSD/alpha Miata box that
was doing a make release:
initiate_write_inode_block() at initiate_write_inode_block() +0x40
softdep_disk_io_initiation() at softdep_disk_io_initiation() + 0xac
spec_strategy() at spec_strategy() +0x48
:vfs_bio_awrite() at vfs_bio_awrite() + 0x484
:flushbufqueues() at flushbufqueues() +0x1e8
:buf_daemon() at buf_daemon() + 0x114
:exception_return() at excpetion_return
:
:This is a manual transcript, no serial console.
:
:Softupdates only enabled on /usr, /usr/obj. Make release was
:putting it generated
.
:
:Softupdates only enabled on /usr, /usr/obj. Make release was
:putting it generated stuff on /usr
:
:No dump unfortunately, I'll see if I can catch it again
:
:--
:Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands - The FreeBSD Project
: WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
