[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
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes:
>:
>: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
>
>Sl
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; do; sync; s
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 differently
>(possibly doin
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 _disable_ softupdates on a file
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 discussion son this topic in the archives.
>
> I'
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Jeremy write
s:
>Whilst the solution to this appears obvious (if you can't allocate a
>block, but there are free blocks on the to-be-commited list, wait for
>free space to become available), actually implementing it is quite
>difficult if you want to avoid de
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.
My only concern wi
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 archives as to why. If
Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> [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 wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, it has been working quite stably here too. Besides, one must do
> > > a "tunefs -n enable"
On 2000-06-22 11:54 +0200, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 g
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 leaving a softupdates filesystem ide
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 Th
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 wrote:
} > >
} > >
[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 wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it has been working quite stably here too. Besides, one must do
> > a "tunefs -n enable" for every partition that he or she
20 matches
Mail list logo
