From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr 26 00:12:09 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA11134
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:12:09 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA11128
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:12:00 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA09681; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 17:09:28 +1000
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 17:09:28 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199504260709.RAA09681@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: hackers@FreeBSD.org, imb@asstdc.scgt.oz.au
Subject: Re: async mounts .. bogus ?
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>I was experimenting with the async mount attribute in an effort to speed up
>this machine's handling of news but observed two problems ..

>asstdc:~ vmstat -m
>Memory statistics by bucket size
>Size   In Use   Free   Requests  HighWater  Couldfree
>...
>  8K       38      7        162       5         97 <---- where from ??? :-)

In FreeBSD-1.x, "Couldfree" meant "missed opportunities to free".  It
apparently still means this - on my freefall there are now 450792 1K
and 861 8K buffers in the "Couldfree" column.  I hope freefall doesn't
have 450MB of leaked memory.  I hope it has 450MB of unleaked memory :-).

>Memory usage type by bucket size

This has some anomalies too.  Lots of buckets have type `temp'.
Shouldn't `temp' be only for short-lived allocations?

> .. ultimately, I came back into the room to find that it had rebooted
>itself in order to dispense with my alteration :-(.

>Is "mount -o async" still bogus in 950412-SNAP (which is what I'm running) ?

I think "-o osync" is still close to a no-op.

Bruce