Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:58:04 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Philip Murray <pmurray@nevada.net.nz> Cc: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>, FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.1 Memory Exhaustion Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokK_ErcCShRzOK5Tm8MmuXp9FEQUj9MnbCTZDo1=ek8Qw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BF8D2D25-AD1F-4D9C-A70F-831CAC621059@nevada.net.nz> References: <CAB2_NwCngPqFH4q-YZk00RO_aVF9JraeSsVX3xS0z5EV3YGa1Q@mail.gmail.com> <55A3A800.5060904@denninger.net> <BF8D2D25-AD1F-4D9C-A70F-831CAC621059@nevada.net.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 July 2015 at 14:58, Philip Murray <pmurray@nevada.net.nz> wrote: > >> On 13/07/2015, at 11:58 pm, Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> wrote: >> >> Put this on your box and see if the problem goes away.... :-) >> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D187594 >> > > Is there a concise explanation of why this hasn=E2=80=99t been merged int= o -CURRENT? > > I know there are concerns that it isn=E2=80=99t the proper fix, but I can= =E2=80=99t find any discussion of the > argument against it. Only people with positive reports about it fixing pe= ople=E2=80=99s problems. > > Sorry if this keeps getting asked but I couldn=E2=80=99t find a good reas= on why not documented > anywhere, which could form a reason not to use the patch in certain situa= tions. > > (I have about 24TB about to go into production on ZFS, so I=E2=80=99m par= ticularly interested in it) > > Cheers There were concerns that it only fixes a subset of issues by moving the problem elsewhere. I'd have to go re-check what's going on. Was there ever a phabricator review for it? -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokK_ErcCShRzOK5Tm8MmuXp9FEQUj9MnbCTZDo1=ek8Qw>