From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org  Wed Jul 15 22:05:57 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB759A35F9
 for <freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:05:57 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from pmurray@nevada.net.nz)
Received: from bellagio.open2view.net (bellagio.open2view.net [210.48.79.75])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3BF1A36
 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:05:56 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from pmurray@nevada.net.nz)
Received: from dhcp100.akl.open2view.lan (unknown [114.23.246.97])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 (Authenticated sender: pmurray@nevada.net.nz)
 by bellagio.open2view.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFB0512AA573;
 Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:58:01 +1200 (NZST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.1 Memory Exhaustion
From: Philip Murray <pmurray@nevada.net.nz>
In-Reply-To: <55A3A800.5060904@denninger.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:58:02 +1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BF8D2D25-AD1F-4D9C-A70F-831CAC621059@nevada.net.nz>
References: <CAB2_NwCngPqFH4q-YZk00RO_aVF9JraeSsVX3xS0z5EV3YGa1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <55A3A800.5060904@denninger.net>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>,
 freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:05:57 -0000


> On 13/07/2015, at 11:58 pm, Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> wrote:
>=20
> Put this on your box and see if the problem goes away.... :-)
>=20
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D187594
>=20

Is there a concise explanation of why this hasn=92t been merged into =
-CURRENT?=20

I know there are concerns that it isn=92t the proper fix, but I can=92t =
find any discussion of the
argument against it. Only people with positive reports about it fixing =
people=92s problems.

Sorry if this keeps getting asked but I couldn=92t find a good reason =
why not documented=20
anywhere, which could form a reason not to use the patch in certain =
situations.

(I have about 24TB about to go into production on ZFS, so I=92m =
particularly interested in it)

Cheers

Phil=20=