From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 28 9:26:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD90E14D67; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:26:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #4) id 1230O9-0007BF-00; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:26:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:26:23 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Mike Smith Cc: "Mr. K." , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic In-Reply-To: <199912280626.WAA01224@mass.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > Totally untweaked kernel. I didn't get to tweaking yet. I shouldn't have > > > > to tweak anything to make the kernel not panic, though... Not > > > > complaining, just pre-empting possible flames. > > > > > > That's completely incorrect. > > > > I don't know what part of the above you say is incorrect. > > > > FreeBSD has a tendency to panic in out of mbuf situations. That > > shouldn't happen. > > The semantics of "should" and "shouldn't" are debatable. In this case, > the panic is a simple indicator that the administrator hasn't correctly > tuned the system. Many would argue that this is a much better outcome > than a system that performs poorly for no immediately perceptible reason, > and it certainly encourages the prompt application of a correct > adjustment. Well, in FreeBSD 2.2.x, an "Out of mbufs!" message was printed on the console, and there was no panic. > -- > \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith > \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org > \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message