From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Aug 3 21:33:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (mail.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 515FF37B631 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:33:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <115201>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:33:25 +1000 Content-return: prohibited Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:33:19 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Cached versus non cached disk I/O In-reply-to: ; from tom@uniserve.com on Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 03:20:02PM -0700 To: Tom Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mail-followup-to: Tom , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <00Aug4.143325est.115201@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i References: <00Aug4.072549est.115835@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2000-Aug-03 15:20:02 -0700, Tom wrote: >On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> Not quite. softupdates is actually more robust than a normal FS >> mount (and far more robust than async). > Not likely. I personally pushed softupdates over the edge before (see >archives). In my case, the amount of unwritten metadata filled up all >kernel space. The filesystem was recoverable, but fsck filled up >lost+found several times (that should be considered a fsck bug that wasn't >possible to expose without softupdates). It was rather messy. That definitely is (or was) a bug in softupdates - it's not supposed to behave that way. I presume you're referring to the postmark test you were running last December on 3.4-STABLE. Looking at the CVS logs, the core softupdates code would have been 1.34.2.3, which is now nearly a year old. Have you tried repeating your tests on a more version of softupdates (5-CURRENT or 4-STABLE)? It looks like Kirk doesn't MFC many of the changes he makes in -CURRENT, but there were are a lot of softupdates fixes in 4-STABLE compared to 3-STABLE. (From what I can see, there has only been one real bugfix in -CURRENT since 4-STABLE branched - that related to a panic if user quotas were exceeded). Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message