From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 12 20:04:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979E516A4A0 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:04:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lulf@stud.ntnu.no) Received: from signal.itea.ntnu.no (signal.itea.ntnu.no [129.241.190.231]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B12143DDA for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:02:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lulf@stud.ntnu.no) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by signal.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C9934A76; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:02:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gaupe.stud.ntnu.no (gaupe.stud.ntnu.no [129.241.56.184]) by signal.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:02:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by gaupe.stud.ntnu.no (Postfix, from userid 2312) id B42CFCFF19; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:02:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:02:51 +0200 From: Ulf Lilleengen To: "R. B. Riddick" Message-ID: <20060912200251.GA3098@stud.ntnu.no> References: <20060912193816.GA32402@stud.ntnu.no> <20060912194737.90446.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060912194737.90446.qmail@web30309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Content-Scanned: with sophos and spamassassin at mailgw.ntnu.no. Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gvinum raid5 in production X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:04:18 -0000 On tir, sep 12, 2006 at 12:47:37 -0700, R. B. Riddick wrote: > --- Ulf Lilleengen wrote: > > Have a look at the CURRENT branch instead. It uses a worker queue. In > > RELENG_6 i can see that it used g_malloc. > > > Oh yes... I looked via the CVS web interface... Currently it is like I would do > it, too... > > Maybe the originator of this thread should try to update to CURRENT? I would not recommend using CURRENT in production :) -- Ulf Lilleengen