From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 16 16:54:06 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA16403 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA16393 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA04241; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:51:46 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199610162351.QAA04241@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.2.x release question To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:51:46 -0700 (MST) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, jehamby@lightside.com, jsigmon@www.hsc.wvu.edu, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <32655CDB.59E2B600@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Oct 16, 96 03:08:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > and people running > > with it as their /dev still show an unfortunate tendency to crash > > a lot, > > that's actually not true at all. I second this. > > so no. > personally I don't think persistance is of any importance > but I hear the crowd yelling for their placebo's so I will do it some > time.. but it tripples the complexity of the filesystem. I agree with Julian. Persistance is an unnecessary complication. There is no good reason for requiring persistance above abnd beyond the ability to symlink into the thing from elsewhere ()and if the target is gone, it's gone). For permissions and so on, persistance needs to be implemented in the defaults in the device templates. One might arge that there needs to be a user configuration management tools for dealing with all the default permissions assignments, but that's not something required for relese: it's feature creep, and questionable feature creep at that. > > NFS weirdness seems to be the #1 monster under the bed with 2.2 - > > might some of you folks out there with multiple machines be willing to > > assist John and Doug with some stress-testing? If you can find and > > reproduce bugs yourselves, that's even better (e.g. they need someone > > to help play QA team on NFS). > > > we're using 2.2 heavily.. > we have 3 outstanding problems > one of which might be solved but I haven't checked.. I can't do anything about the NFS wierdness without "downgrading" my machines to "-current", something I'm not willing to do. If the FS code could be "upgraded" to "-terry", then I would be able to address most of these problem in short order. I simply can not live without NFS locking and remote build support for the PPC and HP300, and -current just doesn't cut it there. Oh well. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.