From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 27 22:21:18 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (castles542.castles.com [208.214.165.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A8E153DD; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:21:14 -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 WAA01224; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:26:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199912280626.WAA01224@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Tom Cc: Mike Smith , "Mr. K." , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:35:20 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:26:01 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > Totally untweaked kernel. I didn't get to tweaking yet. I shouldn't have > > > to tweak anything to make the kernel not panic, though... Not > > > complaining, just pre-empting possible flames. > > > > That's completely incorrect. > > I don't know what part of the above you say is incorrect. > > FreeBSD has a tendency to panic in out of mbuf situations. That > shouldn't happen. The semantics of "should" and "shouldn't" are debatable. In this case, the panic is a simple indicator that the administrator hasn't correctly tuned the system. Many would argue that this is a much better outcome than a system that performs poorly for no immediately perceptible reason, and it certainly encourages the prompt application of a correct adjustment. -- \\ 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-stable" in the body of the message