David Schultz wrote:
The easy way to fix this is to insert a new dependency for the
completion of the allocation. Basically, this would put in a
stall barrier that would cause the outstanding I/O to drain before
the new I/O was attempted. All other operations behind the one
that caused
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David Schultz wrote:
The easy way to fix this is to insert a new dependency for the
completion of the allocation. Basically, this would put in a
stall barrier that would cause the outstanding I/O to drain before
the new I/O was attempted.
David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David Schultz wrote:
The easy way to fix this is to insert a new dependency for the
completion of the allocation. Basically, this would put in a
stall barrier that would cause the outstanding I/O to drain before
the new I/O was
Thus spake Darren Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
IMO, this is not the reason for them being off on /; the real
reason is as I've stated: sysinstall expects the common case to
be an initial install, not operations after the initial
This thread should be on -questions.
As far as safe updating, one can always take a snapshot before
installworld and restore from that if something goes awry.
thank you,
-Alfred
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In other words, if it would have worked with soft updates turned
off, then it will work with soft updates turned on.
My point was that a busy disk that is nearly 100% full will
probably experience intermitted ``disk full''
David Schultz wrote:
I think softupdates is still (viewed as) riskier than synchronous
writes, at least for large numbers of writes (like installworld) to a
NB: An initial system install is done with async mounts. You can't
use async mounts if you use soft updates, because the
The inspiration for this email was from a thread in
-questions: Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset
Is anybody currently working on or does there exist
a JFS for FreeBSD?
I've read in the archives, the discussion about
not really needing JFS because of the benefits of
softupdates. As
Someone, quite probably Daxbert, once wrote:
The inspiration for this email was from a thread in
-questions: Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset
Is anybody currently working on or does there exist
a JFS for FreeBSD?
http://jfs4bsd.sourceforge.net/
Kevin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
In 045401c2d2db$f9d45c30$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Daxbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Is anybody currently working on or does there exist
a JFS for FreeBSD?
To the best of my knowledge, there is no JFS, and nobody is working on
one.
I've read in the archives, the discussion about
not really needing
One with a license that will let it be distributed in the core. That
lets out GPL'ed code, and I believe it lets out XFS as well, though
I'm not positive on that.
Just FYI, IBM's JFS is GPL'd, IIRC, according 2 the WWW site for JFS.
Hah, yay for acronyms.
Thus spake Daxbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The inspiration for this email was from a thread in
-questions: Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset
Is anybody currently working on or does there exist
a JFS for FreeBSD?
...
Is there not a JFS for FreeBSD becuase, Softupdates
do the job just
Thus spake Daxbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The inspiration for this email was from a thread in
-questions: Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset
Is anybody currently working on or does there exist
a JFS for FreeBSD?
Various people (including myself and Hiten Pandya) have done work to
Matthew Emmerton wrote:
Thus spake Daxbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The inspiration for this email was from a thread in
-questions: Re: fsck takes very long after crash/reset
Is anybody currently working on or does there exist
a JFS for FreeBSD?
Various people (including myself and Hiten Pandya)
northern snowfall wrote:
Just FYI, IBM's JFS is GPL'd, IIRC, according 2 the WWW site for JFS.
Hah, yay for acronyms.
And the IBM JFS is actually the OS/2 JFS, not the AIX JFS.
-- TRL
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 07:40:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no
writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem
that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupdates is
Terry Lambert wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no
writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem
that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupdates is disabled
by default for /. For large, active
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken
and egg problem of runing tunefs on /.
If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default
when partitioning for a new install?
You can certainly change the options in sysinstall to
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 07:40:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no
writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem
that journalling addresses, and is probably why softupdates is
Thus spake Brooks Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 07:40:00PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Not really. A properly laid-out filesystem hierarchy will result in no
writes to / (except for installworld/kernel). That removes the problem
that
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken
and egg problem of runing tunefs on /.
If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default
when partitioning for a new install?
Oliver Stone said it was because
Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken
and egg problem of runing tunefs on /.
If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default
when partitioning for a new install?
Oliver Stone said it was because there's a conspiracy.
it's the downdraft from
Michael Sierchio wrote:
Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Soft updates are disable on / by default because of the chicken
and egg problem of runing tunefs on /.
If that's the problem, then why doesn't sysinstall enable it by default
when partitioning for a new install?
You can certainly change
David Schultz wrote:
There's no chicken and egg problem when you're booting off install
media or for that matter from single user mode. The problem was that
softupdates means you don't get space back from deleted files immediatly
so previously / tended to fillup during installworld or
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 06:41:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
northern snowfall wrote:
Just FYI, IBM's JFS is GPL'd, IIRC, according 2 the WWW site for JFS.
Hah, yay for acronyms.
And the IBM JFS is actually the OS/2 JFS, not the AIX JFS.
Or AIX JFS2 :)
(In fact both AIX JFS2 (j2) and
25 matches
Mail list logo
