From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 30 22:28:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (castles532.castles.com [208.214.165.96]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F65154E5 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:28:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00620; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:34:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199912310634.WAA00620@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Tom Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates and debug.max_softdeps In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:02:33 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 22:34:04 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > That is interesting. So I guess the conclusion to this is, softupdates > is useful for bursty IO, but not sustained because it can get far behind > until it eventually reaches the point where the machine reboots silently. > I guess the delay until reboot is dependent on the size of max_softdeps. > If it is big, it takes a while. I mentioned this a while back in the context of suspended I/O (in this case, a RAID array busy dealing with a failed disk). There wasn't much interest in dealing with it evinced at that point. -- \\ 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message