Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:20:50 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: ports@freebsd.org, linimon@lonesome.com, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, jhs@berklix.com, ben@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/diskcheckd needs fixing and a maintainer Message-ID: <CADLo83-MXGLOQexp9woAeSmKvC8rBobM49pidTBC7-eXTwoCZA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <CADLo83-kEaQyFOiR45WmYdOru8vqu-MhAgb9p=OhjOo-TVUwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <201108171436.p7HEaNYQ071778@fire.js.berklix.net> <20110817161554.GA2496@lonesome.com> <4e4cc750.GqJImeHzdv6k8zld%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 August 2011 09:03, <perryh@pluto.rain.com> wrote: > Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We don't want to provide broken software. > > Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > >> ... it's obsolete, broken, junk ... > > Unless there is more to this than is reported in those two PRs, > I'd call it a considerable exaggeration to describe diskcheckd > as "broken". > > * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/115853 > =A0is shown as "closed", so presumably is no longer a problem. Wow, would it have been too difficult to actually READ the closing message from Jeremy? I suggest you look again -- I've pasted it here so you can see it. "The problem here is that the code does not do what the manpage says (or vice-versa). The 3rd column does not specify frequency of checking, but rather, over what duration of time to spread a single disk scan over. Thus, 7 days would mean "spread the entire disk check at X rate over the course of 7 days". There is still a bug in the code where large disks will cause problems resulting in updateproctitle() never getting called, and so on, but that's unrelated to this PR. I'm closing the PR because trying to fix all of this should really be ben@'s responsibility. (Sorry for sounding harsh.)" How does that indicate it's fixed? It's an 'abandoned' PR. > * http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/143566 > =A0says "... diskcheckd runs fine when gmirror is not involved ..." > =A0and then goes on to describe a problem _when diskcheckd is run > =A0on a component of a gmirror_. > > How anyone got from "in some way incompatible with gmirror" to > "broken" escapes me. =A0One could as well claim that gmirror is > "broken" because it is incompatible with diskcheckd >:-> No. It's broken because there's no logical reason -- it will probably break with other things. > I'm currently running diskcheckd on an 8.1 gmirrored system with > config file > > =A0/dev/ad0 * * 8192 > > -- which should be using about 1/6 of that disk's bandwidth -- and > will see what happens when it reaches the end of the disk (sometime > tomorrow). =A0So far I have not seen any issues. Thank you for testing and investigating, this is what the port has needed, and two days of being deprecated has achieved more than 18 months of a PR being open. Chris --=20 Chris Rees =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| FreeBSD Developer crees@FreeBSD.org =A0 | http://people.freebsd.org/~crees
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-MXGLOQexp9woAeSmKvC8rBobM49pidTBC7-eXTwoCZA>