Hello, O..
You wrote 1 сентября 2011 г., 20:06:21:
> Once done, you can force on a non-important, big filesystem a crash. I
> switched of one of my server boxes with a 3 TB harddrive for test purposes and
> was amazed how fast, compared to unjournaled UFS2, the fsck now is performed.
> Since *BSD
with
options SOFTUPDATES # Enable FFS soft updates support
In single-user mode or unmounted filesystems:
tunefs -j enable
Ian
Yes, it is really "THAT SIMPLE". But after enabling SU+J, I ran a "fsck"
on the filesystem in
question and I was asked wether I want t
Niclas Zeising wrote:
> Can you please detail a little more the steps you took to enable SU+J
> and your experience with it? It sounds like a good start for a howto or
> an inclusion in the handbook.
It's really simple...
You need a kernel compiled with
options
On 2011-08-31 20:02, Hartmann, O. wrote:
> On 08/31/11 19:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hartmann, O.
>> wrote:
>>>I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
>>>on
>>>
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:02:38 +0200
"Hartmann, O." wrote:
>
> ... and here I am again with SU+J on my box ;-)
>
> Tomorrow, I will perform this step on all servers. I guess it's a
> "worth having".
Most definitely. When rebooting after a forced power-down (due to that
darned flash plugin lockin
On 08/31/11 19:56, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hartmann, O.
wrote:
I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
on
UFS2 filesystems.
Agreed. Added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/DocsFor9x .
Many thanks.
As I could see, SU+J is
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Hartmann, O.
wrote:
>
> I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
> on
> UFS2 filesystems.
Agreed. Added to http://wiki.freebsd.org/DocsFor9x .
> As I could see, SU+J is enlisted to be enabled by default in 9.0-RE
I try to find a suitable reading/howto for how to enable softupdates
on
UFS2 filesystems. As I could see, SU+J is enlisted to be enabled by
default in 9.0-RELEASE. What is the status quo of that?
I've several active systems running UFS2 on their system disks while
data
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:32:12 -0400
Ryan Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Aleksandr Rybalko
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found a difference of definition softdep_request_cleanup.
> > when SOFTUPDATES undefined softdep_request_cleanup take only two
>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found a difference of definition softdep_request_cleanup.
> when SOFTUPDATES undefined softdep_request_cleanup take only two arguments.
>
> Patch to fix this:
>
> Index: s
Hi,
I found a difference of definition softdep_request_cleanup.
when SOFTUPDATES undefined softdep_request_cleanup take only two arguments.
Patch to fix this:
Index: sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c
===
--- sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c
This is from 5.2-BETA-20031127-JPSNAP.iso on a P4/800FSB/HT system:
Note: this was manually transcribed because of the nature of the bug
(installation failure), was unable to obtain a crash dump to be saved.
It's completely reproducible on every installation attempt *IFF*
softupdates is en
I found the bug that I introduced around the 29th of august. It is fixed
in ffs_softdep.c rev 1.143. Truely, most of the leg work was done by
tegge. I just produced and tested a patch. This completes a buildworld
with 128M of memory now, whereas before it just completed with 64m and
512m. perh
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is this statement still valid?
>
> "ext3 is unsafe for maildir, and with softupdates, so is ffs."
> http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0202/0358.html
The statement is FUD; this is a topic that mailer people l
Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
Is this statement still valid?
"ext3 is unsafe for maildir, and with softupdates, so is ffs."
http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0202/0358.html
Yes,
It's also true that any form of write-caching is unsafe, so disable
the caches on your SCSI and
Hello,
Is this statement still valid?
"ext3 is unsafe for maildir, and with softupdates, so is ffs."
http://www.irbs.net/internet/postfix/0202/0358.html
Thanks,
--
Attila Nagy e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software Network (FSN.HU) phone @
Hello,
Today -current, 100% reproducable.
Script started on Wed Mar 26 18:17:44 2003
golf# gdb kernel.2603 -k vmcore.29
GNU gdb 5.2.1 (FreeBSD)
Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or di
Hi,
>
> Write cacheing is automatically enabled if tagged queueing is enabled
> and supported by the disk, so I doubt you're seeing any improvement at
> all.
I must admit: My statements are based on experience with SCSI Tagged Queuing
and SCSI Write Cache. I hope I'm correct if I assume that th
Nuno Teixeira wrote:
> I understand the basic concept of the folowing techs: softupdates, disk
> write cache and ata tags.
>
> My question is:
>
> It is safe to use softupdates + write cache + ata tags (IBM disk)?
>
> I read someware that it not safe to use
Matthias Schuendehuette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I consider it unnecessary to use WriteCache if TaggedQueuing is enabled
> and working.
> (The performace gain of WriteCache and TaggedQueuing is more or less the
> same, the combination of both adds less than 10% of performance and you
> shou
Hi,
> Is it safe to use softupdates + write cache + ata tags (IBM disk)?
The summary of *my* experience and knowledge is:
It is considered *unsave* to use Soft Updates with WriteCache enabled.
I consider it unnecessary to use WriteCache if TaggedQueuing is enabled
and working.
(The perform
Hello to all,
I understand the basic concept of the folowing techs: softupdates, disk
write cache and ata tags.
My question is:
It is safe to use softupdates + write cache + ata tags (IBM disk)?
I read someware that it not safe to use softupdate + write cache
(without ata tags) and if
OR> Just got this panic under CURRENT:
OR> [... 21 frames after the panic removed ...]
OR> #22 0xc02494fc in softdep_disk_io_initiation (bp=0x100)
OR> at ../../../ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c:3453
[ ...snip...]
looks simulate to kern/42277 and kern/42235
--
VAMPIRO-RIPN
http://vampiro.rootshell.ru
Just got this panic under CURRENT:
[... 21 frames after the panic removed ...]
#22 0xc02494fc in softdep_disk_io_initiation (bp=0x100)
at ../../../ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c:3453
#23 0xc01df5ad in cluster_wbuild (vp=0xc2f457c4, size=16384, start_lbn=11,
len=3) at buf.h:408
#24 0xc01d980c in v
ments from
softupdates (which remains relatively fixed between -stable and
-current tests). There's nothing wrong with softupdates.
#!/bin/tcsh -f
#
# (all tests run on a DELL2550 2xCPUx/1.1GHz P3s)
cd /usr/src
mv ~dillon/bwtest.out ~dillon/bwtest.out.bak
( /usr/bin/time -l make
I have a system running -CURRENT from 7th May and it panic'd over the
weekend:
panicstr: bwrite: buffer is not busy???
panic messages:
---
panic: free: address 0xccc792c0(0xccc79000) has not been allocated.
syncing disks... panic: bwrite: buffer is not busy???
Uptime: 10d8h49m19s
pfs_vncache_unl
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:52:06AM -0500, a little birdie told me
that Dan Nelson remarked
> In the last episode (Jul 06), David Scheidt said:
> >
> > I've dodged that problem by SIGSTOPing installworld a couple times during
> > the /sbin install, waiting for softup
In the last episode (Jul 06), David Scheidt said:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> :In the last episode (Jul 05), Benjamin P. Grubin said:
> :> As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it
> :> was unsafe to enable softupdates on a root p
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Dan Nelson wrote:
:In the last episode (Jul 05), Benjamin P. Grubin said:
:> As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it
:> was unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to
:> go back in the water there, now?
:
:The 2
>From: "Benjamin P. Grubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:46:54 -0400
>As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it was
>unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to go back in
>the water there, now?
W
In the last episode (Jul 05), Benjamin P. Grubin said:
> As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it
> was unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to
> go back in the water there, now?
The 2 drawbacks with SU are
1 - You can't immedia
As of a month ago or so, there was some discussion that concluded it was
unsafe to enable softupdates on a root partition. Is it safe to go back in
the water there, now?
Cheers,
Ben
Benjamin P. Grubin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint: EDE9 A88F 3BCC 514A F310 FEFB
* Jeremiah Gowdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010531 17:57] wrote:
> I have been told that the OpenBSD code that is supposed to speed up some
> types of file system access up to 60x, has been committed to -current on
> 4/30. I'm wondering if there's any idea when it will be committed to
> -stable? Are t
I have been told that the OpenBSD code that is supposed to speed up some
types of file system access up to 60x, has been committed to -current on
4/30. I'm wondering if there's any idea when it will be committed to
-stable? Are their any stability issues with the code?
> On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:18:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Another problem I'm having in -current right now is with softupdates. Wh=
> en
> > the system panic'ed the first time, it came up ok and fsck'ed fine with no
> > apparent loss of data.
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:18:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Another problem I'm having in -current right now is with softupdates. When
> the system panic'ed the first time, it came up ok and fsck'ed fine with no
> apparent loss of data. However, during the fsc
Another problem I'm having in -current right now is with softupdates. When
the system panic'ed the first time, it came up ok and fsck'ed fine with no
apparent loss of data. However, during the fsck it complained bitterly
about my superblocks, and when it was done and th
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > There's always the 'nosoftdep' mount option. It's also possible to
> > enable it by default on everything except the root filesystem, but
> > that's a [minor] POLA violation.
>
> I fai
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> There's always the 'nosoftdep' mount option. It's also possible to
> enable it by default on everything except the root filesystem, but
> that's a [minor] POLA violation.
I fail to see what is wrong with defaulting to `off'.
--
-
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
> > > If
writes:
>>> > The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
>>> > If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
>>> In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by default and let
>>Problem is many still fe
tands _why_
it happens, but that doesn't make enyone any more comfortable about
using softupdates on their root partition.
I don't think it has anything to do with reliability.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> > If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
>>
>> In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by default and let
>
>Problem is many still feel it should not be used on / .
Why not ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
> > If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
>
> In this case, it migh
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:51:46PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> Are you talking about se's patches to make softdep a mount option,
yes
> The former isn't something you can just drop in. You'd have to decide
> if softdep should be the default.
It defaults to what tunefs sets it to -- POLA.
>
At 11:51 AM -0800 3/10/01, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
>H. OK, you intrigued me enough by this that I just went
>ahead and did it in -current. :) Let me know what you think,
>come tomorrow's snapshot.
Ooo. Might this be MFC-able before 4.3 goes out the door?
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
> If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by default and let
those who don't want it somewhe
atch) except that it will be made
> obsolete when the former goes in.
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
Paul tweaked it to be backwards compatable for -stable so that it didn't
require people to up
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
>
> Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
> Is Paul going to commit his, or can I take this on and c
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
Is Paul going to commit his, or can I take this on and commit the ones
posted?
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTE
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: sysinstall option for softupdates
> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:43:52 -0800
>
> > Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
> > tunefs optio
From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:43:52 -0800
> Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
> tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug th
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
> tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug that newfs
> didn't gain that functionality when it was added to tunefs.
I wrot
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:51:54AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> I think this is really the only place to do it, just to ease
> confusion. You also wouldn't need to put superblock-frobbing code
> into sysinstall, just bundle tunefs into the mfsroot.
Why not add the softupdates o
* Jordan Hubbard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010310 14:52]:
> H. OK, you intrigued me enough by this that I just went ahead and
> did it in -current. :) Let me know what you think, come tomorrow's
> snapshot.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I love FreeBSD
I've got a box that is in desperate n
From: James FitzGibbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:19:51 -0500
> Are there any issues/plans to let users enable softupdates from inside of
> sysinstall ?
No "plans", but it's certainly something which cou
Are there any issues/plans to let users enable softupdates from inside of
sysinstall ? Softupdates are already enabled in the GENERIC kernel, but to
turn them on you have to run tunefs with the filesystem unmounted. Too
often I find myself doing an onsite install then doing all my customization
aiting on the arrival of the 2nd processor. It
boots up and runs fine.
> Before pointing any fingers at softupdates, etc... I think that
> the first thing I'd do on this machine is switch back to using a real
> uniprocessor kernel, and then see if I could replicate the problem
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 7:36 PM + 2000/8/28, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> > Perhaps in a rush to get started, I've compiled and
> > been using a SMP kernel even before the second processor arrives. This
> > has worked fine, however I've gotten some rather weird hangs and
s
> resulting in a nice lost+found directory on the usr fs.
Personally, I'm astonished that an SMP kernel will actually boot
and run on a uniprocessor machine.
Before pointing any fingers at softupdates, etc... I think that
the first thing I'd do on this machin
ed
where the SMP one did before.. I'm sure it's not a cooling issue as the
sole CPU is staying below 35C.
However I'm curious:
* Are there any known issues with SMP and softupdates as of late?
* Is running one processor with an SMP kernel such a horrible idea (other
than perfor
=
All local filesystems on the machine, except /, are running softupdates:
==
{roadwarrior:/usr/home/ken:2:0} df
Filesystem 1K-blocks UsedAvail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/da0s2a
I did some thinking about this, but no real code inspection, on a walk today-
I think what is occurring is that the list of directory updates is getting
refreshed from another process while the first process' list is being written
out. A quick hack would be to make sure this doesn't happen (no -j
Hi,
I just got a softupdates related panic on my dual PPro during
buildworld. Sources from July, 4th. Build with -j4.
I'll keep the dump if there's any need.
#0 boot (howto=260) at ../../kern/kern_shutdown.c:303
#1 0xc0177a29 in panic (fmt=0xc0298c54 "from debugger"
[Redirected.]
< said:
> I'm not sure I have a feeling that there are softupdate problems
> running under SMP. A number of times this year I've lost whole filesystems
> on an SMP machines. :(
$ uptime
1:41PM up 34 days, 23:46, 1 user, load averages: 3.54, 3.72, 3.65
$ uname -a
FreeBSD xy
On Sat, Jun 24, 2000, Kirk McKusick wrote:
[snip]
> Kirk, do you still want to keep things that way ?
>
> Adrian
>
> Yes, I do want it kept as a yunefs option.
[snip]
> Your above proposal would work, though that is not how NetBSD
> implemented it. I feel that it is a lot of extr
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:54:26 +0200
From: Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h
ffs_softdep.c
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Brad K
mp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>
>Slight problem: We've run out of mount option flags.
mount -o softupdates ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attr
On 2000-06-23 09:41 -0700, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Slight problem: We've run out of mount option flags.
But there already ist MNT_SOFTDEP in ...
#define MNT_SUIDDIR 0x0010 /* special handling of SUID on dirs */
#define MNT_SOFTDEP 0x0020 /* sof
:
:Right, but if mounting with -osoftdep, does what a "tunefs -n enable"
:does (and vice versa) fsck will have that knowledge and the tunefs
:step would be un-needed.
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
Slight problem: We've run out of mount option flags.
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the NetBSD version to work, what needs to happen is that the -osoftdep
> flag needs to be propagated to the superblock so that after reboot, fsck
> knows what to do. When it is next mounted, then update it to the new state.
>From what I can tell from
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
...
> This has bitten a number of people who have turned softupdates on for
> their root filesystems - and had installworld die.
>
There is a workaround for this:
Before running installworld start a shellscript in background with:
while true;
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes
:
>Because fsck is supposed to be able to do things more intelligently when it
>knows the *previous* mount state, not the current state. ie: if a disk was
>last mounted in softupdates mode, fsck is supposed to do stuff differe
The softupdates license has changed to 2-clause BSD-style with no
more restrictions on use.
The files were repocopied into their "natural" locations (sys/ufs/ffs)
so that symlinks are no longer required. This has been done retroactively
to all older branches that have the soft up
Peter Jeremy writes:
> On 2000-Jun-22 15:22:12 -0500, Chris Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think it would be a very good idea to enable softupdates by default
> >when a new filesystem is created. Modify newfs to do this and use
> >tunefs only if you want to
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> [snip NetBSD making softupdates a mount option]
>
> > They obvioulsly DIDN'T discuss this with Kirk!
> >
> > this is not what he wants and for good reason..
> > see the long
lt if you want to avoid deadlocks. Kirk has previously
>recommended that softupdates not be enabled on a filesystem unless it
>has sufficient free space to absorb about 1 minute's writes.
yup, this one is tricky, I tried to fix it by sleeping on the
potential of allocating a block, b
On 2000-Jun-22 15:22:12 -0500, Chris Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think it would be a very good idea to enable softupdates by default
>when a new filesystem is created. Modify newfs to do this and use
>tunefs only if you want to _disable_ softupdates on a filesystem.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
[snip NetBSD making softupdates a mount option]
> They obvioulsly DIDN'T discuss this with Kirk!
>
> this is not what he wants and for good reason..
> see the long discussion son this topic in the archives.
I've read the mail
what's going on?
I just found out about this this morning. There's a bit of a
mess in that directory. Somebody put the softupdates files into
/home/ncvs/src/sys/ufs/ffs manually on June 21. The files were
damaged -- each one had two RELENG_3 tags pointing to different
branches. That cau
ne must do
> > > a "tunefs -n enable" for every partition that he or she wants to do
> > > softupdates anyway, so just adding the support for softupdates to the
> > > GENERIC kernel won't hurt anyone who don't want to turn that feature
> > >
t; If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine.
>
> Hmm, Kirk has valid points for leaving a softupdates filesystem identified
> by tunefs and not a mount option.
I do remember the discussion that lead to the requirement to enable
soft-updates with tunefs -n.
But I do n
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 10:30 AM +0200 2000/6/22, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > I like this. Would anyone object if this was brought over from NetBSD ?
>
> If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine.
Hmm, Kirk has valid points for leav
At 10:30 AM +0200 2000/6/22, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I like this. Would anyone object if this was brought over from NetBSD ?
If you're asking for a vote, you've got mine.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
On Jun 22, 2:21am, Don Lewis wrote:
} Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep
} On Jun 22, 10:30am, Adrian Chadd wrote:
} } Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep
} }
} } [shifting conversation to -current .. ]
} }
} } On
On Jun 22, 10:30am, Adrian Chadd wrote:
} Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/softupdates softdep.h ffs_softdep
}
} [shifting conversation to -current .. ]
}
} On Thu, Jun 22, 2000, Anders Andersson wrote:
} > on Tor, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:46:34pm +0900, Akinori -Aki- MUSHA wr
every partition that he or she wants to do
> > softupdates anyway, so just adding the support for softupdates to the
> > GENERIC kernel won't hurt anyone who don't want to turn that feature
> > on by default, except a little code increase.
>
> Please take a look
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, George Michaelson wrote:
>So does this mean the whole shebang of find/read/link/recompile can finally
>end? NetBSD got rid of this ages ago.
Well Kirk McKusick has already committed the license change, a la:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=524952+0+current/cvs-a
>From Daemon news:
Kirk McKusick announced this morning at the USENIX keynote that the
softupdates code will now be available under a BSD license. Details
to follow.
So does this mean the whole shebang of find/read/link/recompile can finally
end? NetBSD got rid of this ages ago.
-Geo
From: Kevin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Panic with userquota(softupdates?)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:55:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I keep getting panics in dqget(ufs_quota.c), with a -current
I keep getting panics in dqget(ufs_quota.c), with a -current from a couple
of days ago. I think this might be softupdates related, since I can't make
it happen with softupdates turned off, although it's quite possible that it
has nothing to do with it. Does anyone have any idea wha
gnificant difference:
find /usr/src | cpio -pdum /target (~600k blocks):
/noraid (1 drive, softupdates):
901.70s real 6.32s user 135.73s system
944.64s real 6.40s user 135.49s system (*MAXACTIVE to 3)
buildworld -j16:
src & obj on /noraid volume (1 drive, s
x27;s worth.
>
> The biggest (non)surprise is how big a difference softupdates makes.
> Nice!
>
> buildworld -j16:
> src & obj on IDE disk (softupdates)
> 5676.29 real 7701.09 user 6133.60 sys
> src & obj on /noraid volume (1 drive, softupdates)
> 60
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:14:20 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
>with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
>and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it
>w
At 12:49 PM -0800 2000/2/17, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Depending on how temporary your temporary files are, it'd be
> interesting to see if the 4.0 optimizations benifit your benchmark
> and also remain stable.
Yup, that would be an interesting question.
> Would it be possible for y
ast
> > series of bug-fixes a few weeks ago, everything works as advertised.
>
> While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
> with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
> and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten
While we're on this subject, I recently did some benchmarking
with just a single disk on a machine running 3.4-STABLE, both with
and without softupdates. I haven't yet gotten a chance to test it
with vinum and softupdates, but what I got did a pretty good job of
impressing me.
ly
questionable) tests involving find|cpio of the source tree and then
buildworld -j16 on various vinum volumes.
So I thought I'd forward the results to current, for what it's worth.
The biggest (non)surprise is how big a difference softupdates makes.
Nice!
-- Parag Patel
&quo
box.
Have you determined yet if softupdates is causing the problem or not?
softupdates usually panics when something goes wrong. If you are
getting a lockup rather then a panic it may not be softupdates.
I've been running continuous buildworlds on my test box for two days
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:43:14AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :Softupdates only enabled on /usr, /usr/obj. Make release was
> :putting it generated stuff on /usr
> :
> :No dump unfortunately, I'll see if I can catch it again
> :
> :--
> :Wilko Bulte
1 - 100 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
