Peter Holm wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:57:16PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:20:03PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
Got a panic: Not a vnode object quite fast:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pho/stress/log/kostik441.txt
Ah, yes, this is an assertion that was
Am 01.07.2011 um 07:01 schrieb Sean M. Collins:
Ugh - bonnie++ creates a file that is twice the size of available
memory, and I have 16G of swap available. While ZFS already had most of
the memory wired for ARC. I shouldn't be surprised that the box was
printing swap zone exhausted
The box
On 7/1/11 2:42 AM, Stefan Bethke wrote:
The box shouldn't wedge in this situation. If tmpfs can create
a memory starvation situation on the kernel level, it is not
production ready.
The full message was swap zone exhausted, increase kern.maxswzone - I
guess that actual swap wasn't exhausted,
On Fri, 01.07.2011 at 11:33:42 -0400, Sean M. Collins wrote:
On 7/1/11 2:42 AM, Stefan Bethke wrote:
The box shouldn't wedge in this situation. If tmpfs can create
a memory starvation situation on the kernel level, it is not
production ready.
The full message was swap zone exhausted,
Maybe i'm missing something but creating/removing large number of files
in one directory on tmpfs was very slow for me. That was long ago and
ZFS was in so i'll try to retest...
I decided to torture test tmpfs with bonnie++ on one of my machines and
the machine wedged. I can ping it but that's
Ugh - bonnie++ creates a file that is twice the size of available
memory, and I have 16G of swap available. While ZFS already had most of
the memory wired for ARC. I shouldn't be surprised that the box was
printing swap zone exhausted
I'm an idiot. Can we replace the warning message with one
23.06.2011 19:31, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
years with no problems.
I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
TMPFS either.
Maybe i'm missing something but
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Hi KIB,
Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have
PRs covering those.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
- I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with
Hi KIB,
Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have
PRs covering those.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
- I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with tmpfs. He
would have more details. I somewhat remember some panic on
On 27 June 2011 17:42, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi KIB,
Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have
PRs covering those.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
- I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:57:16PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:20:03PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
Got a panic: Not a vnode object quite fast:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pho/stress/log/kostik441.txt
Ah, yes, this is an assertion that was added in the r209702.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:31:09AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
years with no problems.
I may have missed something,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:31:09AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:06:27PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:31:09AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:21:05PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:06:27PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:31:09AM
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:50:43PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:21:05PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:06:27PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:30:16PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:20:03PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote:
Got a panic: Not a vnode object quite fast:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pho/stress/log/kostik441.txt
Ah, yes, this is an assertion that was added in the r209702.
http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/tmpfs.7.patch
pgpfCkfwvYyso.pgp
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
years with no problems.
I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
TMPFS either.
Index: tmpfs_vfsops.c
I gave up on using it after a brief try earlier this year. I can't
remember the details, but it did lock up my amd64 system.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
years with no
On Thu Jun 23 11, Matthew Jacob wrote:
I gave up on using it after a brief try earlier this year. I can't
remember the details, but it did lock up my amd64 system.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Jacob wrote:
I gave up on using it after a brief try earlier this year. I can't
remember the details, but it did lock up my amd64 system.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill
Hi,
Sounds good to me. The tmpfs(5) man page should be patched also.
--
Craig Rodrigues
rodr...@crodrigues.org
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:31 AM, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
On 23 June 2011 17:31, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
years with no problems.
I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
TMPFS either.
Index:
2011/6/23 Alexander V. Chernikov melif...@ipfw.ru:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Jacob wrote:
I gave up on using it after a brief try earlier this year. I can't
remember the details, but it did lock up my amd64 system.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, David O'Brien wrote:
I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
TMPFS either.
There was some issues with sendfile(2) and mmap(2) causing kernel hangs
in some cases. vim triggers such hangs for me. However, those problems
were fixed and MFCed (afair).
Can you sway when?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:31:09AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Does anyone object to this patch?
David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
years with no problems.
I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
TMPFS either.
Index:
On (23/06/2011 20:44), Olivier Smedts wrote:
2011/6/23 Alexander V. Chernikov melif...@ipfw.ru:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Jacob wrote:
I gave up on using it after a brief try earlier this year. I can't
remember the details, but it did lock up my amd64
27 matches
Mail list logo
