Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:45:39 +0200
From:      Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org
Subject:   Re: sync delay and consitency
Message-ID:  <20031126184539.6c995ffa.itetcu@apropo.ro>
In-Reply-To: <444qwrkyck.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
References:  <20031125134915.2514dd57.itetcu@apropo.ro> <444qwrkyck.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26 Nov 2003 09:18:03 -0500
Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:

> Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> writes:
> 
> > I have a machine that randomly crashes. I wonder if lowering 
> > 
> > Variable         Default      Description
> > kern.filedelay   30           time to delay syncing files
> > kern.dirdelay    29           time to delay syncing directories
> > kern.metadelay   28           time to delay syncing metadata
> > 
> > would help having a more up-to-date fs (using soft-updates). 
> 
> It might.  This may depend on *why* it's crashing, so I'd try
> attacking that problem first.

Whish I knew.  It's freezes (eg. no keyboard or mouse, replies to ping,
but no new shh sesions, etc.) It is problaly something software, as I've
changed almost everything on the hardware side. No drop to debugger,
nothing in logs. (I suspect *something* in the interupt code, I'll try
on 5.2when I'l have time).

> 
> > Also is there a reason for the 30-29-28 (the 1 differece between)
> > sequence ?
> 
> I'd speculate that it's to keep the three cycles from synchronizing
> with each other (which they would tend to do if they were repeating 
> with the same period).


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031126184539.6c995ffa.itetcu>