From owner-freebsd-current Fri May 19 12:43:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F8B37BFBF for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 12:43:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA40388; Fri, 19 May 2000 12:43:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:43:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200005191943.MAA40388@apollo.backplane.com> To: Matthew Reimer Cc: Greg Lehey , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Possible Vinum RAID-5 problems? (was: panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc) References: <39256530.1FD33AA5@vpop.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Greg Lehey wrote: :> :> As far as soft updates goes, basically it's incompatible with Vinum, :> since there's currently no way of ensuring the sequence of writes :> across a number of disks. I'm thinking of ways of doing it, but they :> will cause significant loss in performance. There should be no :> problems as long as there isn't a crash, of course :-) : :Do you mean that softupdates is entirely incompatible with Vinum, or :just incompatible with Vinum's RAID5? : :Matt Wait a sec... softupdates does not depend on write ordering. Softupdates issues all non-conflicting writes in parallel and doesn't care what order they are written to the disk. When those complete, softupdates will then followup with all the writes that depend on the original set. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message