On Friday, 14 March 2003 at 10:05:28 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:16:02PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> So I did. Loaned two SCSI disks and 50-pin cable. Things haven't
>>> improved a bit, I'm very sorry to say it.
>>
>> Sorry for the slo
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:16:02PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I did. Loaned two SCSI disks and 50-pin cable. Things haven't
> > improved a bit, I'm very sorry to say it.
>
> Sorry for the slow reply to this. I thought it would make sense to
> try things out here
On Saturday, 1 March 2003 at 20:43:10 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:53:02AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
>
The vinum R5 and system as a whole were stable without
softupdates. Only one problem remained after disabling softupdates,
while being online and u
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:53:02AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> > > The vinum R5 and system as a whole were stable without
> > > softupdates. Only one problem remained after disabling softupdates,
> > > while being online and user I/O going on, rebuilding of failed disk
> > > corrupt the R5 vol
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:59:59AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were
> > related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo.
>
> Well, at one point we suspected that. But the cases I have seen were
> based on a misa
On Friday, 21 February 2003 at 1:56:56 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Vallo Kallaste wrote:
>> The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were
>> related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo. The vinum R5 and system as
>> a whole were stable without softupdates. Only one problem rema
On Friday, 21 February 2003 at 10:00:46 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:28:45PM -0800, Darryl Okahata
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll second Brad's statement about vinum and softupdates
>>> interactions. My last exper
Darryl Okahata wrote:
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this is an expected problem with a lot of concatenation,
> > whether through Vinum, GEOM, RAIDFrame, or whatever.
> >
> > This comes about for the same reason that you can't "mount -u"
> > to turn Soft Updates from "off" t
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is an expected problem with a lot of concatenation,
> whether through Vinum, GEOM, RAIDFrame, or whatever.
>
> This comes about for the same reason that you can't "mount -u"
> to turn Soft Updates from "off" to "on": Soft Updates does not
>
Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> The crashes and anomalies with filesystem residing on R5 volume were
> related to vinum(R5)/softupdates combo. The vinum R5 and system as
> a whole were stable without softupdates. Only one problem remained
> after disabling softupdates, while being online and user I/O going
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:28:45PM -0800, Darryl Okahata
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'll second Brad's statement about vinum and softupdates
> > interactions. My last experiments with vinum were more than half a
> > year ago, but I guess it still
At 2:28 PM -0800 2003/02/20, Darryl Okahata wrote:
Did you believe that the crashes were caused by enabling softupdates on
an R5 vinum volume, or were the crashes unrelated to vinum/softupdates?
I can see how crashes unrelated to vinum/softupdates might trash vinum
filesystems.
Using
Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll second Brad's statement about vinum and softupdates
> interactions. My last experiments with vinum were more than half a
> year ago, but I guess it still holds. BTW, the interactions showed
> up _only_ on R5 volumes. I had 6 disk (SCSI) R5 volume in
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, vinum & softupdates have had bad interactions with each
> other for as long as I can remember. Has this truly been a
> consistent thing (as I seem to recall), or has this been an
> on-again/off-again situation?
Ah, yaaah. Hmm ...
At 9:15 AM -0800 2003/02/19, Darryl Okahata wrote:
* The UFS1 filesystem in question (and I assume that it was UFS1, as I
did not specify a filesystem type to newfs) is located on a RAID5
vinum volume, consisting of five 80GB disks.
* Softupdates is enabled.
You know, vinum & softupda
David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, Kirk was trying to reproduce this a little while ago in
> response to similar reports. He would probably be interested
> in any new information.
I don't have any useful information, but I do have a data point:
My 5.0-RELEASE system r
Thus spake Martin Blapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just wanted to tell that I can deadlock one of my current boxes
> with a ufs2 filesystem on a 120GB ATA disk. I can reproduce
> the problem. The background fsck process hangs some time at the
> same place always at the same place, sometimes the box f
Hi all,
I just wanted to tell that I can deadlock one of my current boxes
with a ufs2 filesystem on a 120GB ATA disk. I can reproduce
the problem. The background fsck process hangs some time at the
same place always at the same place, sometimes the box freezes
after some time.
The same box works
18 matches
Mail list logo
