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 as
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 exhau
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 exhauste
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
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 abo
> 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
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 creating/re
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
On 27 June 2011 17:42, 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 tmpfs. He
>> wo
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 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
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.pg
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
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
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
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
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 misse
On (23/06/2011 20:44), Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2011/6/23 Alexander V. Chernikov :
> > -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 sy
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.
>
>
> In
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?
__
2011/6/23 Alexander V. Chernikov :
> -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:
>>
>>>
On 23 June 2011 17:31, 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.
>
>
> Index: tmpfs_vfsops.c
>
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 wrote:
> Does anyone object to this patch?
>
> David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
> years with no pro
-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
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 TM
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 problem
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
===
27 matches
Mail list logo
