Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:17:12 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902210907120.2677-100000@feral-gw> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902202145390.82049-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry to say that during testing last night (in the middle of which a buildworld got started) the system paniced again with a 'panic: getnewbuf infinite recursion failure'. I've left it in the debugger if anyone could suggest looking at something. I'm going to New Orleans tomorrow so it can sit in the debugger until Friday... A very cursory look at the code makes me wonder 'why the value of 5 for a limit'? It doesn't seem to me a panic is a good solution. On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > As of the last set of fixes that added some more splbio protection, the > > testing has gone a lot better. Many thanks. Now I'll start raising the bar > > from 9GB filesystems to > 100GB filesystems with larger blocksizes (unless > > someone says "No! No! Don't do that!") > > Its good that your panic seems to have been addressed but I can't see any > quick solutions for the responsiveness problem. It appears to be a > combination of the way that BSD looks up pathnames and the lack of any > mechanism from stopping writer processes from monopolising the i/o queues. > > -- > Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com > Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9902210907120.2677-100000>