Hello,
I just upgraded a -CURRENT box this afternoon to discover that vinum
is broken. If I hadn't done dumps of my working world beforehand I
would be in pretty sad shape. Should UPDATING make note of this breakage?
It would have saved me some embarassment, and I'm sure others are about
to
On Friday, 21 November 2003 at 15:42:12 -0800, Marcus Reid wrote:
Hello,
I just upgraded a -CURRENT box this afternoon to discover that vinum
is broken. If I hadn't done dumps of my working world beforehand I
would be in pretty sad shape. Should UPDATING make note of this
breakage?
No.
Hi Greg,
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:05:38AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 21 November 2003 at 15:42:12 -0800, Marcus Reid wrote:
Hello,
I just upgraded a -CURRENT box this afternoon to discover that vinum
is broken. If I hadn't done dumps of my working world beforehand I
On Wednesday, 5 April 2000 at 11:43:52 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Also, as a general note to everyone, make sure you are building vinum
into the kernel directly and not using it as a kld, just to ensure that
it stays in sync with the kernel.
Isn't this in direct
Greg Lehey wrote:
Technical explanation: A buffer header gets corrupted between the
time the top half of the driver issues the request to the disk
driver, and when the I/O completes. Currently, the evidence is
pointing towards the disk driver, but the corruption is of such an
I've tracked down two bugs in vinum's raid5 implementation and
submitted a tentitive patch to Greg for evaluation. It seems
to fix the panics I was able to reproduce. The patch is available
(but note that once Greg commits the real fix, you need to wipe it
before you cvs
(needless to say, the patch I posted is relative to FreeBSD-4.x, not 5)
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
:
:On Apr 05, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: (needless to say, the patch I posted is relative to FreeBSD-4.x, not 5)
:
: -Matt
: Matthew Dillon
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
:
: Here's
I've tracked down two bugs in vinum's raid5 implementation and
submitted a tentitive patch to Greg for evaluation. It seems
to fix the panics I was able to reproduce. The patch is available
(but note that once Greg commits the real fix, you need to wipe it
before you
At 9:49 AM -0700 2000/4/5, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Also, as a general note to everyone, make sure you are building vinum
into the kernel directly and not using it as a kld, just to ensure that
it stays in sync with the kernel.
Isn't this in direct conflict with the
:Matt,
: help me understand your patch. this is how i read it at this
:time:
:
:
:Matt has just made available an early patch that corrects the vinum
:panic. is this the same vinum panic that people are claiming phk
:created with the bio/buf changes? i dont know the vinum code. i dont
:
: Also, as a general note to everyone, make sure you are building vinum
: into the kernel directly and not using it as a kld, just to ensure that
: it stays in sync with the kernel.
:
: Isn't this in direct conflict with the instructions given for
:normally using vinum?
At 11:43 AM -0700 2000/4/5, Matthew Dillon wrote:
This is my personal recommendation - if you are messing around with
something that is under development or test, it is best to build it
into the kernel to avoid getting out of sync without knowing it.
Ahh, okay. Sounds
* Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000405 12:12] wrote:
:
: Also, as a general note to everyone, make sure you are building vinum
: into the kernel directly and not using it as a kld, just to ensure that
: it stays in sync with the kernel.
:
: Isn't this in direct
At 12:21 PM -0700 2000/4/5, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Last I checked, doing so is dangerous because by default the userland
components of vinum have debugging on which is incompatible with
a kernel running vinum without debug (the default when linked in).
Correct, I believe that
:
:At 12:21 PM -0700 2000/4/5, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
:
: Last I checked, doing so is dangerous because by default the userland
: components of vinum have debugging on which is incompatible with
: a kernel running vinum without debug (the default when linked in).
:
: Correct, I believe
On Wednesday, 5 April 2000 at 11:42:40 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Matt,
help me understand your patch. this is how i read it at this
time:
Matt has just made available an early patch that corrects the vinum
panic. is this the same vinum panic that people are claiming phk
created
On Tuesday, 4 April 2000 at 15:31:00 +0200, Søren Schmidt wrote:
It seems Brad Knowles wrote:
Like I said in a previous message, Poul broke vinum (among other
things) under 4.0-STABLE, and this needs to be fixed ASAP. If Poul
had kept his changes unique to -CURRENT, then 4.0-STABLE
On Tuesday, 4 April 2000 at 15:33:43 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message v04220803b50f8d254208@[195.238.1.121], Brad Knowles writes:
At 8:23 AM +0200 2000/4/4, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
Like I said in another mail, this is CURRENT, things are
expected to break. You
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Lehey writes:
The problem in vinum/releng4 is the problem greg has been blaming
on CAM since at least FreeBSDcon and indications seems to be that
it is actually a malloc/free gottcha in vinum.
No, this is not correct. The problem you're talking about I
20 matches
Mail list logo
