this may have been a loose cable. After reseating the
cable and reinitializing the drive, it seems to be fine. I turned
on softupdates and all seems well ... Thanks for responding...
--
Tim Daneliuk
tun...@tundraware.com
The other day I mentioned I had a problem with a Samba-shared drive that
was just installed blowing up. When I rebuilt it, I forgot to enable
softupdates but the drive seems to be working flawlessly. I understand
it is possible to do this after-the-fact with tunefs. Some questions:
Do I
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.comwrote:
This drive is being used as a backup drive for all the workstations on
this particular network, and reliable is much more important than
slightly faster.
As someone already said, SU is probably not the culprit here.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
The other day I mentioned I had a problem with a Samba-shared drive that
was just installed blowing up. When I rebuilt it, I forgot to enable
softupdates but the drive seems to be working flawlessly. I understand
it is possible to do this after-the-fact with tunefs
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.comwrote:
Although from what you describe my choice for the drive would be gjournal +
UFS. If you've got a lot of asynchronous IO that's a better solution.
Instead of asynchronous, I meant multi-threaded. gjournal + UFS
)]e
rror = 5
I reformatted and remounted the drive and accidentally forgot to enable
softupdates. It seems to now be working fine.
Is there a known interaction with softupdates and Samba such that I should
not use them in this case, or could this just have been a loose cable
or something
(offset=746531569664, length=131072)]e rror = 5
I reformatted and remounted the drive and accidentally forgot to enable
softupdates. It seems to now be working fine.
Is there a known interaction with softupdates and Samba such that I should
not use them in this case, or could this just
I've memorized that one shouldn't use soft-updates on /
RSE's excellent howto on setting up a pair of mirrored disks
(http://people.freebsd.org/~rse/mirror/) includes this line
newfs -U /dev/mirror/gm0s1a
which enables softupdates.
Is this not quite correct, or am I missing something
Hi all,
This is addressed in the FAQ to some extent, but that answer seems
incomplete.
Apparently one of the Google Summer of Code projects is to add journaling
to UFS. When it already has softupdates, why? I've seen benchmarks that
seem to indicate that softupdates performs as well
Zev Thompson wrote:
Apparently one of the Google Summer of Code projects is to add
journaling to UFS. When it already has softupdates, why? I've seen
benchmarks that seem to indicate that softupdates performs as well or
better in most cases, though I have nothing on hand to substantiate
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alex de Kruijff
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:57 PM
To: Scott Sipe
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Softupdates Question
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:40:41PM -0400, Scott Sipe wrote
that are are Windows Server and Novell--yes, it's old) but
we've been running fine on this configuration.
The software is sensitive to data caching issues etc, and corruption
is occasionally an issue.
I have all oplocks disabled for the share in samba, and at the moment
I have softupdates disabled
fine on this configuration.
The software is sensitive to data caching issues etc, and corruption
is occasionally an issue.
I have all oplocks disabled for the share in samba, and at the moment
I have softupdates disabled on the accounting software mount.
My question is, does activating
Is there a URL that describes how softupdates work?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.johncon.com/
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Conover) writes:
Is there a URL that describes how softupdates work?
From
/usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs/README.softupdates:
How Soft Updates Work
For more general information on soft updates, please see:
http://www.mckusick.com/softdep/
http
I just noticed that I didn't create *quite* enough space in my /var
partition for accepting somewhat larger email attachments/ messages.
i thought softupdates was the way to go, but on reading the handbook
online, that's not quite what i thought it was
is there any way with 5.2.1 to move
Comrade Burnout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just noticed that I didn't create *quite* enough space in my /var
partition for accepting somewhat larger email attachments/ messages.
i thought softupdates was the way to go, but on reading the handbook
online, that's not quite what i thought
I just noticed that I didn't create *quite* enough space in my /var
partition for accepting somewhat larger email attachments/ messages.
i thought softupdates was the way to go, but on reading the handbook
online, that's not quite what i thought it was
is there any way with 5.2.1
Jerry McAllister wrote:
I just noticed that I didn't create *quite* enough space in my /var
partition for accepting somewhat larger email attachments/ messages.
i thought softupdates was the way to go, but on reading the handbook
online, that's not quite what i thought
Bill Moran wrote:
Comrade Burnout [1][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just noticed that I didn't create *quite* enough space in my /var
partition for accepting somewhat larger email attachments/ messages.
i thought softupdates was the way to go, but on reading the handbook
online, that's
Lowell Gilbert wrote:
Heinrich Rebehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have had the above error 2 times now during fsck after an unclean
shutdown. fsck -y yielded tons of entries in lost+found.
man (7) tuning says that softupdates guarantees filesystem consistency
in case of crash, but thousands
Hi Heinrich Rebehn,
you wrote.
Make sure you've disabled write caching on the drive firmware
itself...
HR Does this also apply for RAID disks (twe)? Also, there is no word about
HR this in man tuning(7). Is this more of a guess or is softupdates
HR definately dangerous with wite cache enabled
is write cache only dangerous with softupdates, as you wrote above?
IIRC softupdates relies on the assumption that when the softupdate
changes return, they really ARE on the disk. It's the same with most
RDBMS: because they go to great lengths to ensure the journal is in an
ok state they need to know
Hello Heinrich,
Sunday, February 22, 2004, 6:49:46 PM, you wrote:
what you write does make sense, although i really can't understand why
this important info is not in the FreeBSD documentation.
I have disabled write cache, but i will keep softupdates disabled as
well for now, and see how
dangerous with softupdates, as you wrote above?
IIRC softupdates relies on the assumption that when the softupdate
changes return, they really ARE on the disk. It's the same with most
RDBMS: because they go to great lengths to ensure the journal is in an
ok state they need to know for sure that the data
Hi list,
I have had the above error 2 times now during fsck after an unclean
shutdown. fsck -y yielded tons of entries in lost+found.
man (7) tuning says that softupdates guarantees filesystem consistency
in case of crash, but thousands of lost files tell a different story.
Did i miss anything
the softupdates feature for the FFS to make the system runs faster.
Thanks for your opinion.
Michael Lee
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2003-10-14T09:44:31Z, Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have 4 SCSI hdds connect to this controller card. I wonder if I should
disable the softupdates feature for the FFS to make the system runs
faster.
Out of curiosity, what part of the system do you think would be faster
without
Hi Kirk,
Thank you for your reply but I think that you probably misunderstand me.
So far as I know, FFS with softupdates support acts quite similar to async.
file system. However, hardware based RAID controller card is usually
equipped with some cache RAM. In some aspects, RAID controller card
Greg 'groggy' Lehey writes:
That's because there's nothing to say about them.
What was the cause of the panic?
Greg,
Thanks for following up. I realise my original post was rather scanty on
detail, but I was just wondering about the specific combination of
vinum/softupdates. Since you
- they have
vinum devices which are also mounted with softupdates enabled.
Is this OK?
Well, panics are not OK.
I have not been able to find any mention of softupdates in the vinum
man pages.
That's because there's nothing to say about them.
What was the cause of the panic?
Greg
--
When
Hi folks.
I have a few boxes which have recently begun to behave rather badly -
frequent panics and lots of errors being spewed out during fsck on reboot.
I note that these particular boxes have one thing in common - they have
vinum devices which are also mounted with softupdates enabled
Hi,
Several times under heavy disk load (copy/delete large directories, the
last stage of CVS update) I got the messages like this last
free inode /usr/96318 had -765900 blocks
handle_workitem_freeblocks: block count
(with different inodes), and then during reboot something about mount
pending
Bill Moran wrote:
Attila Nagyn wrote:
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,
I don't think this is true for Soft Updates, unless you take your
next statement into account
of the system that are beyond your
control, the potential unreliability of softupdates isn't really worth
worrying about.
However, each individual MUST determine the proper risk level for his
business. For large businesses with inter-office email where many of
those factors _are_ under his control
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
sync, as the potential of loss is much greater...
just my two cents
Raphael
Le Mercredi, 23 juil 2003, à 17:38 Europe/Zurich, Bill Moran a écrit :
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
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:38:44AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
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
Hello,
Making a daily server backup, using dump (FreeBSD 4.7R), I keep running into
a softupdates problem. That is, prior to backing up a partition (/var), I
move a large file (several gigabytes) off that partition. But because of the
softupdates effect, the size of that large file is added
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Mark wrote:
Making a daily server backup, using dump (FreeBSD 4.7R), I keep running into
a softupdates problem. That is, prior to backing up a partition (/var), I
move a large file (several gigabytes) off that partition. But because of the
softupdates effect, the size
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:15:14AM +, Mark wrote:
Making a daily server backup, using dump (FreeBSD 4.7R), I keep running into
a softupdates problem. That is, prior to backing up a partition (/var), I
move a large file (several gigabytes) off that partition. But because of the
softupdates
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: A softupdates problem?
Hmmm... not an answer to the question you asked, but does
not:
# chflags nodump your-very-large
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:12:05 -0400
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Hmmm ... not good. A little more research might qualify this problem for a PR.
I was thinking that myself :-)
- Yikes! Is the machine still responsive? Sometimes you can put the load that
- high and still have a
Hello Bill,
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:53:30 -0400
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I don't know what's wrong, but does unmounting and remounting the partition
- reclaim the lost space?
Alas, I can't umount the partition, my guess is because it is unable to sync
(nothing to do with open
John Ekins wrote:
Hello Bill,
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:53:30 -0400
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I don't know what's wrong, but does unmounting and remounting the partition
- reclaim the lost space?
Alas, I can't umount the partition, my guess is because it is unable to sync
(nothing to do
Hello,
I've a couple of questions about soft updates. I've Googled heavily on this but
not really found a satisfactory answer. The story:
I'm running on numerous FreeBSD 4.7 SMP machines as primary MX machines. The mail
is not stored on the FreeBSD machines but on NetApps via NFS. However the
John Ekins wrote:
Hello,
I've a couple of questions about soft updates. I've Googled heavily on this but
not really found a satisfactory answer. The story:
I'm running on numerous FreeBSD 4.7 SMP machines as primary MX machines. The mail
is not stored on the FreeBSD machines but on NetApps via
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-02-21 14:52:45 -0500:
the reason that they disabled by default on / is almost
certainly because the / is usually *small*, not large.
thus spoke Terry Lambert in
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
: I believe the reason it's not on in sysinstall is that
Hi guys,
I know that in the mailing list a while ago people were wondering why
SoftUpdates were not enabled by default at install time on the / partition.
Now I installed FreeBSD 4.7 RELEASE into a 4GB slice. I did not create
seperate bits for / or /usr and such - but one large big space.
So I
Alistair Phillips wrote:
Hi guys,
I know that in the mailing list a while ago people were wondering why
SoftUpdates were not enabled by default at install time on the / partition.
Now I installed FreeBSD 4.7 RELEASE into a 4GB slice. I did not create
seperate bits for / or /usr
On Friday 21 February 2003 08:10 am, Alistair Phillips wrote:
| Hi guys,
|
| So I enabled SoftUpdates when I was busy with FDISK at the install
| time and now it seems like it may have been a bad idea. Now I know
| 4GB is not much but it seems that there is no more space left. And
| at times
On Friday 21 February 2003 08:10 am, Alistair Phillips wrote:
| Hi guys,
|
| So I enabled SoftUpdates when I was busy with FDISK at the install
| time and now it seems like it may have been a bad idea. Now I know
| 4GB is not much but it seems that there is no more space
left
John Straiton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 21 February 2003 08:10 am, Alistair Phillips wrote:
| Hi guys,
|
| So I enabled SoftUpdates when I was busy with FDISK at the install
| time and now it seems like it may have been a bad idea. Now I know
| 4GB is not much
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 11:40:34AM +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
during the process of setting up some new servers I noticed that
sysinstall will enable softupdates by default for everything BUT /.
Is there any risk if I set / to use softupdates as well?
The problem with softupdates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hello Matthew,
Saturday, October 19, 2002, 1:29:47 PM, you wrote:
For general use, softupdates on the root partition is not a problem.
If your root partition is big enough to let you do whatever you need
to by way of updating your system despite enabling
In the last episode (Jul 17), Marc G. Fournier said:
I think in 5.0, there is an option to have this done on a reboot, but is
there a safe way of doing this in 4.6-STABLE? Where I can have it enabled
on reboot?
I add a tunefs -n enable /dev/da0s1a at the very top of /etc/rc,
reboot, then
unmount and remount, but that's not always possible.
As far as I know, there is not, but this is something I've wanted for a while.
Better yet, I'd like a command to synchronously force a full sync of the
softupdates information.
Is there such a thing?
Would it be conceivable to devise
57 matches
Mail list logo
