From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May  3 09:55:24 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809EB16A401
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  3 May 2006 09:55:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from nospam@mgedv.net)
Received: from mgedv.at (mail.mgedv.at [195.3.87.103])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F8943D45
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  3 May 2006 09:55:23 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from nospam@mgedv.net)
Received: from metis (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mgedv.at (SMTPServer) with ESMTP id E307A186864
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  3 May 2006 11:55:14 +0200 (MEST)
From: "No@SPAM@mgEDV.net" <nospam@mgedv.net>
To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:55:26 +0200
Message-ID: <007f01c66e97$b44bc760$dededede@avalon.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
In-Reply-To: <20060502201054.GA93912@xor.obsecurity.org>
Thread-Index: AcZuJUBnXVOCOn6ISD2M9REsg61JRAAcgppA
Subject: RE: 6.1-RC2: strange kernel panic!
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: nospam@mgedv.net
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:55:24 -0000

 
> Don't you think you should test it instead of guessing? :-) I suggested
> it because it *is* a possibility (that is why I have it in my kernel).
yes, but doesn't it make sense to find memory consuming things
before adding more?
btw. how can we check for such things?

> Are you sure you are using swap backing and not malloc?
nope, i'm not sure if it was that, but -M was passed to mdmfs,
so malloc(9) was used. we changed the code to swap-based, let's
see if that fixes our problem.