On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:14:29PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
= How will it break them? swap backing only touches swap if there is
= memory pressure, i.e. precisely the situation in which malloc backing
= will panic.
=
= I forgot that
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:59:46PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:59:46AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:03:30PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 15:53, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= Yes, I switched to swap-backed md already.
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
= How will it break them? swap backing only touches swap if there is
= memory pressure, i.e. precisely the situation in which malloc backing
= will panic.
=
= I forgot that in BSD swap wouldn't be allocated in advance to its
= consumers. Then
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:14:29PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
= How will it break them? swap backing only touches swap if there is
= memory pressure, i.e. precisely the situation in which malloc backing
= will panic.
=
= I forgot that
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:17:14PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:14:29PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
= How will it break them? swap backing only touches swap if there is
= memory pressure, i.e. precisely the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:30:22PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:17:14PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:14:29PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
= How will it break them? swap backing only
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:17:14PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:14:29PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:23, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
= How will it break them? swap backing only touches swap if there is
= memory pressure, i.e.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:03:30PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 15:53, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= Yes, I switched to swap-backed md already. But the malloc-based variety
is
= currently the _default_ (see /etc/defaults/rc.conf)...
= Bad default.
Filing a PR.
Keep
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:59:46AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:03:30PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 15:53, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= Yes, I switched to swap-backed md already. But the malloc-based variety
is
= currently the _default_
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:59:46AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:03:30PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 15:53, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= Yes, I switched to swap-backed md already. But the malloc-based variety
is
= currently the _default_
The memory-mounted /tmp filled up on this 6.2-PRERELEASE system (as of Nov 7).
Unfortunately, instead of the process existing due to ENOSPC, the entire
system paniced:
[...]
g_vfs_done():md0[WRITE(offset=982335488, length=131072)]error = 28
g_vfs_done():md0[WRITE(offset=982466560,
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:59:08AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
/tmp's space allocation (after reboot) is as follows:
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/md0 2026030 3552 1860396 0%/tmp
Note, that it is supposed to hold 2Gb, but was filled up and
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 11:41, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:59:08AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= /tmp's space allocation (after reboot) is as follows:
=
=Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
=/dev/md0 2026030 3552 1860396 0%/tmp
=
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:48:11PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 11:41, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:59:08AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
= /tmp's space allocation (after reboot) is as follows:
=
=Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 15:53, Alex Kozlov wrote:
= Yes, I switched to swap-backed md already. But the malloc-based variety is
= currently the _default_ (see /etc/defaults/rc.conf)...
= Bad default.
Filing a PR.
= Creation of a 2Gb malloc-based md should've failed on a machine with
=
Documented in the manpage, use swap backing or reserve enough space.
Kris
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:59:08AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
The memory-mounted /tmp filled up on this 6.2-PRERELEASE system (as of Nov 7).
Unfortunately, instead of the process existing due to ENOSPC, the entire
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 16:09, Kris Kennaway wrote:
= Documented in the manpage, use swap backing or reserve enough space.
=
= Kris
The strings panic and -o reserve are mentioned in neither mdmfs(8) nor in
rc.conf(5)... Is one supposed to look elsewhere?
Worse, the use of malloc-based mds
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:24:21PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 16:09, Kris Kennaway wrote:
= Documented in the manpage, use swap backing or reserve enough space.
=
= Kris
The strings panic and -o reserve are mentioned in neither mdmfs(8) nor in
rc.conf(5)...
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:46:57PM -0500, Michael Proto wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:24:21PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
The strings panic and -o reserve are mentioned in neither mdmfs(8) nor
in
rc.conf(5)... Is one supposed to look elsewhere?
Yes,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:24:21PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
The strings panic and -o reserve are mentioned in neither mdmfs(8) nor
in
rc.conf(5)... Is one supposed to look elsewhere?
Yes, mdconfig, which is what creates the device (mdmfs is a legacy
wrapper for
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:24:21PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
The strings panic and -o reserve are mentioned in neither mdmfs(8) nor
in
rc.conf(5)... Is one supposed to look elsewhere?
Yes, mdconfig, which is what creates the device (mdmfs is a legacy
wrapper for
21 matches
Mail list logo
