From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 12 20:48:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C5716A4CE for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:48:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B6043D1F for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:48:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B0C151385; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:51:05 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Matthew Dillon Message-ID: <20041012205105.GA76130@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <416AE7D7.3030502@murex.com> <200410112038.i9BKcCWt051290@apollo.backplane.com> <416C1B10.7030103@murex.com> <200410121818.i9CIIGRx092072@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200410121818.i9CIIGRx092072@apollo.backplane.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: Mikhail Teterin cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: bde@zeta.org.au Subject: Re: panic in ffs (Re: hangs in nbufkv) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:48:41 -0000 --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: >=20 > :[...] > : > :> But to be absolutely safe, I would follow Bruce's original suggesti= on > :> and increase BKVASIZE to 64K, for your particular system. > :> =20 > :> > :After doing this and testing our backup script, the machine panicked two= =20 > :hours later (about half-way through the backup) with=20 > :"initiate_write_inodeblock_ufs2: already started" (in=20 > :ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c)... I guess, block sizes above 16Kb are just buggy= =20 > :and newfs(8) should be honest about it... > : > : -mi >=20 > Well, it's possible that UFS has bugs related to large block sizes. > People have gotten bitten on and off over the years but usually it=20 > works ok if you leave the 8:1 blocksize:fragsize ratio intact. e.g. > if you have a 64KB block size then you should use a 8K frag size. > If you have a 32KB block size then you should use a 4K frag size. >=20 > I think the buffer cache itself is is likely not the source of this > particular bug. FYI, I ran the package build cluster with 4:1 ratios for a few months and did not have problems. If there are major bugs there I would have expected to come across them. Kris --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBbEO5Wry0BWjoQKURAt/WAKDNPi3AE54aYOVa4x59BOIbzDuvhQCfc/vW qLQC2o3kNyAeYtEAvGcIfkY= =fP4Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--