From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 11 12:04:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA02683 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA02675 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA24055; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:52:34 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701111952.MAA24055@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: mount -o async on a news servre To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:52:34 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "J Wunsch" at Jan 11, 97 12:33:19 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 > > > Every 30 seconds by default, but its tunable with sysctl.. > > > > Due to two cooperating coding errors, setting this value higher > > will increase the time between when you unmount removable media > > and the time you can successfully eject the media (in case you > > were wondering about the delay on ejecting clean JAZ disks...). > > Huh? You mean, after a successful umount, i could not eject a > removable medium? I've never seen this, and i'm occasionally using a > MO drive. Not only that i could remove it after umounting, my `od' > driver even runs with the option to spin down the cartridge after > closing, so i would `hear' if the drive were still open. > > Please, quote the coding errors, instead of only throwing claims. The buffers for the device are not decommitted until the next vclean run, since the freed vnodes with buffers attached are still in the cache. Perhaps "coding errors" was too strong; "antiquated design decisions which did not consider the maximum possible number of future usages to which the code might later be put" is probably more apt. Maybe it could be most simply stated as "there are two places where the code authors failed to look into the future". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.