From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Mar 7 11:42:35 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9620937B401 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:42:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.49.215.141]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8B143F85 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 11:42:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.49.215.141]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D4D8CBB36; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:42:32 -0400 (AST) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:42:32 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Mike Jakubik Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: RE: "leak" in softupdates? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030307154213.P18433@hub.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG not as far as I'm aware ... On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Mike Jakubik wrote: > Hi, im just wondering if you know whether these patches were MFC'd to STABLE > yet. > > Thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:28 PM > To: Wes Peters > Cc: Vallo Kallaste; David Schultz; freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: "leak" in softupdates? > > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Wes Peters wrote: > > > > As Vallo says above ... the 'bug' that Tor helped me fix this past > > > week, with vnlru_proc, being a good example ... how many ppl are > > > running their server with 132 active mount points? From what I can > > > tell, the bugs I'm hitting are all 'fringe bugs', stuff that you really > > > have to be doing something extreme to hit ... but, as such, if I can > > > get the bug fixed, its also one less bug that has the chance of hurting > > > someone else ... > > > > Yes, indeed, and I suspect bugs like that generally get fixed a lot faster > > here than when you submit a similar bug report in Solaris or HP-UX. > > Solaris fixes bugs? > > Seriously though, I really can't say that I can complain about the speed > and effort that bugs get fixed ... the bug I just experienced with vnodes, > Tor did one better (for which I *really* appreciate) ... he guided me, and > forced me, to figure out what was wrong and come up with a solution ... he > ended up doing the final patch, since there is no way I would have been > able to come up with the same solution (nor as cleanly), but I > *understood* what his patch did by the time we were finished ... even when > Matt helped with some VM issues awhile back, the messages that he > included me in literally flew over my head, but I appreciate having been > kept in that loop, and know I've absorb bits and pieces that will help > improve my understanding ... > > > Being worked on. Not so hard to do, much harder to do right. Guess who > > took the easy sleazy path? ;^) The other good news is that the intel > > network cards, both 10/100 (fxp) and 10/100/1000 (em) support 64-bit > > addressing, even in 32-bit PCI slots, so you'll have at least ONE enet > > interface that'll work reasonably fast. > > Yes, I don't recall who it was that explained it to me (Terry, maybe?), > but I understand the problem with going above 4gig under ia32, and was > personally just sitting back and waiting for Intel to go full steam ahead > on the ia64 stuff ... but they just sacked it :( Man, did that ever throw > a shiver up my back ... > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message