Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-04 Thread Mike Burns
On 2016-04-04 14.58.33 +0700, Tinker wrote: > Is "softdep" dangerous? :-O This thread explains more: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=142164001816142=2

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-04 Thread Tinker
On 2016-04-02 17:22, Karel Gardas wrote: .. so basically the situation is like with the current softdep which is also dangerous in slow-write-drive low-memory situation and yet it's in tree. Is "softdep" dangerous? :-O I thought it was a benevolent filesystem optimization, is it malevolent

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-04 Thread Martijn Rijkeboer
> I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. > > The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation > as it is assumes that it may infinitely steal > buffers from the buffer cache and hold onto them indefinitely - and it > assumes it can

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-02 Thread Karel Gardas
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: > I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. > > The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation > as it is assumes that it may infinitely steal > buffers from the buffe

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-01 Thread Amit Kulkarni
1, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: > >> > >> I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. > >> > >> The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation > >> as it is assumes that it may infinitel

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-01 Thread Bob Beck
> > Thanks in advance > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: >> >> I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. >> >> The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation >> as it

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-01 Thread Amit Kulkarni
could the bug(s) be? in amap, uvm/buffer cache, rthreads??? Thanks in advance On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: > I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. > > The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation >

Re: WAPBL?

2016-04-01 Thread Bob Beck
I have more up to date versions of these patches around here. The problem with them is that fundamentally, the WAPBL implementation as it is assumes that it may infinitely steal buffers from the buffer cache and hold onto them indefinitely - and it assumes it can always get buffers from it. While

Re: WAPBL?

2016-03-31 Thread Walter Neto
Hi Predrag, 2016-03-28 22:42 GMT-03:00 Predrag Punosevac <punoseva...@gmail.com>: > Walter Neto wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm not working on it for a while. Sadly I am with no time, but trying >> to escape to return. :( >> > > This is most r

Re: WAPBL?

2016-03-29 Thread Martijn Rijkeboer
Hi, > I'm not working on it for a while. Sadly I am with no time, but trying > to escape to return. :( Thanks for the update. Kind regards, Martijn Rijkeboer

Re: WAPBL?

2016-03-28 Thread Predrag Punosevac
Walter Neto wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm not working on it for a while. Sadly I am with no time, but trying > to escape to return. :( > This is most regrettable. I was following your work on porting WAPBL and the correspondence on tech@openbsd with great interest. Do you thin

Re: WAPBL?

2016-03-28 Thread Walter Neto
Hi, I'm not working on it for a while. Sadly I am with no time, but trying to escape to return. :( 2016-03-26 16:27 GMT-03:00 Martijn Rijkeboer <mart...@bunix.org>: > Hi, > > Just out of curiosity, what has happend with WAPBL? There were some patches > floating around on tech@

WAPBL?

2016-03-26 Thread Martijn Rijkeboer
Hi, Just out of curiosity, what has happend with WAPBL? There were some patches floating around on tech@ in the last months of 2015, but then it became quiet. I'm not complaining just curious. Kind regards, Martijn Rijkeboer