Yeh, cutting edge.. I have system lock/freeze every time with bittorent
(aria2 or rtorrent) when net bandwidth 5 mbit/s or more :)
This is the point I am getting flak again, please don't pollute the env
you're doing it wrong.
(ffs+softdep on softraid crypto)
Plus a person trying to post
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Christian Weisgerber
na...@mips.inka.de wrote:
On 2015-07-30, Karel Gardas gard...@gmail.com wrote:
discussion. So far what I've read is that softdep does have some
unreliability issues on somehow limited platforms: either small kernel
memory or slow disk
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Karel Gardas gard...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Christian Weisgerber
na...@mips.inka.de wrote:
On 2015-07-30, Karel Gardas gard...@gmail.com wrote:
discussion. So far what I've read is that softdep does have some
unreliability issues on
Karel Gardas wrote:
Yes, Free also adds softdep journaling. on the other hand Net
completely abandoned softdep in favour of wapbl, this thing is
interesting since it's about ~1k lines. Net also as the only one from
*BSD supports ffs snapshoting, this is about another ~2k lines of
code. Surely
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I understand that you guys are having fun with this. If you think this
is actually an issue, though, it's probably a good idea to suggest an
FAQ change. Generally reliable is a pretty lukewarm review compared to
the current FAQ, which doesn't mention any
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:30:36AM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
Spent already some time in netbsd/bitrig wapbl code to see what's
relevant for Open and how to structure it to small sensible patches to
push for review. This will take some energy and time indeed, the
problem is that anytime the
W.r.t. code or fixes, I'm afraid this is not only about developer work
but probably also about simple work analysis and kind of direction
discussion. So far what I've read is that softdep does have some
unreliability issues on somehow limited platforms: either small kernel
memory or slow disk
W.r.t. code or fixes, I'm afraid this is not only about developer work
but probably also about simple work analysis and kind of direction
discussion. So far what I've read is that softdep does have some
unreliability issues on somehow limited platforms: either small kernel
memory or slow disk
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:19:11AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
?? ?? [art.is...@yandex.ru] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:56:07AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
generally reliable HAHAHAHAHA
Why irony? It's more or less true for ALL modern computing system.
Артур Истомин wrote:
Yeh, cutting edge.. I have system lock/freeze every time with
bittorent (aria2 or rtorrent) when net bandwidth 5 mbit/s or more :)
(ffs+softdep on softraid crypto)
I've been getting I/O errors and other strange problems with softraid
crypto, both with and without
Артур Истомин wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:19:11AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
?? ?? [art.is...@yandex.ru] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:56:07AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
generally reliable HAHAHAHAHA
Why irony? It's more or less true for ALL
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I understand that you guys are having fun with this. If you think this
is actually an issue, though, it's probably a good idea to suggest an
FAQ change. Generally reliable is a pretty lukewarm review compared to
the current FAQ, which doesn't mention any downsides:
Ffs + softdep + soft raid crypto:
Sounds like you have a case of Bill Murray
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bOtMizMQ6oM
On 29 Jul 2015 18:33, Michael McConville mmcco...@sccs.swarthmore.edu
wrote:
Артур Истомин wrote:
Yeh, cutting edge.. I have system lock/freeze every time with
bittorent
I understand that you guys are having fun with this. If you think this
is actually an issue, though, it's probably a good idea to suggest an
FAQ change. Generally reliable is a pretty lukewarm review compared to
the current FAQ, which doesn't mention any downsides:
?? ?? [art.is...@yandex.ru] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:56:07AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
generally reliable HAHAHAHAHA
Why irony? It's more or less true for ALL modern computing system.
Think of it as a selling point. OpenBSD ffs softdep: On the cutting
edge
generally reliable HAHAHAHAHA
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:31:59PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 06:49:55PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
There was a great discussion about softdep recently:
https://marc.info/?t=14216401691r=1w=2
It needs extra
On 2015/07/23 18:49, Theo de Raadt wrote:
There is no way this diff is going in.
When softdep is 100% reliable, then we can talk.
Even if 100% reliable, by design it tends to cause problems on smaller
filesystems as space is not reclaimed for removed files until after some
delay.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:56:07AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
generally reliable HAHAHAHAHA
Why irony? It's more or less true for ALL modern computing system.
Michael McConville wrote:
There was a great discussion about softdep recently:
https://marc.info/?t=14216401691r=1w=2
It needs extra memory, so the FAQ warns against its use on really old
architectures.
tedu@ described the two main deterrents:
There was a great discussion about softdep recently:
https://marc.info/?t=14216401691r=1w=2
It needs extra memory, so the FAQ warns against its use on really old
architectures.
tedu@ described the two main deterrents:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=142294185000751w=2
There is no way this diff is going in.
When softdep is 100% reliable, then we can talk.
Enabling it prematurely is ridiculous. Considering the defects
are clearly described as lockups, disk space corruption -- with
such a suggestion I must ask --who's side are you on??
There was a great
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 06:49:55PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
There was a great discussion about softdep recently:
https://marc.info/?t=14216401691r=1w=2
It needs extra memory, so the FAQ warns against its use on really
old architectures.
tedu@ described the two main
22 matches
Mail list logo
