On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Tinker wrote:
...
> 1. Re EIO: I understand a disk write in softdep will compromise/crash the
> filesystem. But the error reported below was that it crashes the *OS*.
>
> It seems to me that crashing the whole OS is a too harsh response to
Reading this "softdep" thread (that is
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=142164001816142 ) was quite
intriguing.
Two followup questions:
1. Re EIO: I understand a disk write in softdep will compromise/crash
the filesystem. But the error reported below was that it crashes the
*OS*.
It
Hello
Given that one could change options for filesystem such as sync to async
without remounting using mount -u -o options /what /where
is this possible to disable softdep on the fly (without unmounting)?
Second question:
Does mounting fs with softdep *and* sync options is secure?
For example
Alexandre Ratchov wrote, On 01/19/15 02:44:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:59:34AM +, currellbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The FAQ[1] states that soft updates result in a large performance increase
in disk writing performance, and links to a resource[2] which claims that
soft updates, in
Clint Pachl wrote:
So softdep can definitely enhance performance. And according to Kirk
McKusick, it also enhances FS consistency. So I think I'll be enabling
softdep on my production servers.
I'm sure all the bugs in that complex softdep code have been worked
out by now. ;-)
softdep
On 1/29/2015 12:03 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
error 5 is EIO, input/output error. softdep does not support disks
that don't work, to put it bluntly. The original FFS code can cope
with disk failure by backing out of the operation, but soft updates
reorders things and can't undo what's already been
On Jan 23, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Steve Shockley steve.shock...@shockley.net
wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:13 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
What release and what virtualized SCSI controller where you using?
I found my old notes, it turns out it was on 4.6 and the crash message was:
softdep_setup_freeblocks:
On Jan 23, 2015, at 12:53 PM, Ingo Schwarze schwa...@usta.de wrote:
Hi Predrag,
Predrag Punosevac wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:24:00PM -0500:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 21:47, Steve Shockley wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:13 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
What release and what virtualized SCSI controller where you using?
I found my old notes, it turns out it was on 4.6 and the crash message was:
softdep_setup_freeblocks: got error 5 while
On Jan 28, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 21:47, Steve Shockley wrote:
On 1/22/2015 9:13 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
What release and what virtualized SCSI controller where you using?
I found my old notes, it turns out it was on 4.6 and the
Predrag Punosevac punoseva...@gmail.com wrote:
Ingo Schwarze schwa...@usta.de wrote:
Hi Predrag,
Hi Ingo,
Predrag Punosevac wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:24:00PM -0500:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD servers (5.6 sparc64) runs Mollify and last
night I received an e-mail from an angry user who could not upload files
(the upload will fail or upload the file with
Hi Predrag,
Predrag Punosevac wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:24:00PM -0500:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD servers (5.6 sparc64) runs Mollify and last
night I received an e-mail from an
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Predrag Punosevac punoseva...@gmail.com
wrote:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD servers (5.6 sparc64) runs Mollify and last
night I received an e-mail from an
Quoting Predrag Punosevac punoseva...@gmail.com:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD servers (5.6 sparc64) runs Mollify and last
night I received an e-mail from an angry user who could not upload
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ingo Schwarze schwa...@usta.de wrote:
Hi Predrag,
Predrag Punosevac wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:24:00PM -0500:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD
Ingo Schwarze schwa...@usta.de wrote:
Hi Predrag,
Hi Ingo,
Predrag Punosevac wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:24:00PM -0500:
I was following this discussion with the great interest but without
intend to participate in it until today.
Namely one of my OpenBSD servers (5.6 sparc64)
Hi,
Amit Kulkarni wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:05:03PM -0600:
One more point to add to Ingo's detailed and very helpful reply.
Reboot actually clears /tmp.
The reason i didn't mention that is that it definitely doesn't
have anything to do with Predrag's problem, which was that /tmp
was
On 1/22/2015 9:13 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
What release and what virtualized SCSI controller where you using?
I found my old notes, it turns out it was on 4.6 and the crash message was:
softdep_setup_freeblocks: got error 5 while accessing filesystem
dev = 0x404, block = 1315, fs = /var
panic:
On 1/22/2015 9:13 AM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
I've personally had problems with OpenBSD panics with softupdates when
running under ESXi when the back-end storage becomes high-latency
(aggressive SAN backups, not enough spindles). I haven't tried recently (it
was difficult to repro on demand) but I
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:02:51AM -0500, Steve Shockley wrote:
On 1/21/2015 5:50 AM, frantisek holop wrote:
but in my experience it is not that hard to get a
corrupted filesystem with softupdates and i had to stop
using it. but i seem to attract panics and
page faults.
I've personally
On 1/21/2015 5:50 AM, frantisek holop wrote:
but in my experience it is not that hard to get a
corrupted filesystem with softupdates and i had to stop
using it. but i seem to attract panics and
page faults.
I've personally had problems with OpenBSD panics with softupdates when
running under
Mihai Popescu, 21 Jan 2015 14:34:
but in my experience it is not that hard to get a
corrupted filesystem with softupdates and i had to stop
using it. but i seem to attract panics and
page faults.
in the recent past i had corrupted filesystems even
without softupdates, up to a point
Alexandre Ratchov, 20 Jan 2015 10:17:
in *my* practice, yes. I lost no single file last 10 years despite
the frequent system crashes during kernel development
experimenting.
very nice, i dont doubt that.
but in my experience it is not that hard to get a
corrupted filesystem with softupdates
On 01/21/15 07:34, Mihai Popescu wrote:
...
After watching this thread, I enabled softdep on all FFS partitions
thinking that Firefox will speed up a bit. I will see the results in
time.
Keep in mind what softdeps do -- they improve performance of disk
writes. They do nothing for disk reads.
2015-01-20 1:46 GMT+01:00 Currell Berry currellbe...@gmail.com:
I was mainly curious as to why soft updates were not enabled by default
if they have so many good qualities. Your answers explained this well.
At least sun4c but also other memory starved machines (mostly those who do
not have
a
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:10:53PM +, Currell Berry wrote:
I infer from your response that soft updates possess:
1. increased overhead over default FFS settings.
2. increased implementation complexity over default FFS settings.
Also, I infer that journaling and soft updates provide
:25:51 PM
Subject: Re: What are the disadvantages of soft updates?
On 01/19/15 14:10, Currell Berry wrote:
I infer from your response that soft updates possess:
1. increased overhead over default FFS settings.
2. increased implementation complexity over default FFS settings.
for a he stated
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:59:34AM +, currellbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The FAQ[1] states that soft updates result in a large performance increase
in disk writing performance, and links to a resource[2] which claims that
soft updates, in addition to being a performance enhancement,
equivalent guarantees in
practice?
Thank you,
Currell
-- Original Message --
From: Alexandre Ratchov a...@caoua.org
To: currellbe...@gmail.com
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Sent: 1/19/2015 4:44:59 AM
Subject: Re: What are the disadvantages of soft updates?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:59:34AM +
Message --
From: Alexandre Ratchov a...@caoua.org
To: currellbe...@gmail.com
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Sent: 1/19/2015 4:44:59 AM
Subject: Re: What are the disadvantages of soft updates?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:59:34AM +, currellbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The FAQ[1] states
Hello,
The FAQ[1] states that soft updates result in a large performance
increase in disk writing performance, and links to a resource[2] which
claims that soft updates, in addition to being a performance
enhancement, can also maintain better disk consistency. Resource 2
links to several
32 matches
Mail list logo