Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 3 Dec 1998 23:10:08 -0500 (EST)
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com>
To:        Ronald Kuehn <kuehn@rz.tu-clausthal.de>
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: panic: ffs_blkfree: bad size
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812032307510.7329-100000@bright.fx.genx.net>
In-Reply-To: <199812040355.EAA02620@merlin.rz.tu-clausthal.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> dev=0x20404, bno = 13, bsize = 8192, size = 8192, fs = /var
> panic: ffs_blkfree: bad size
> 
> The /var filesystem does not have soft updates enabled.
> I got a dump, but not from a debugging kernel.
> 
> [ current as of Dec 2 ]

Just wondering, why are people running softupdates and non-softupdates on
the same box, or just plain not using softupdates?

I thought that it is as reliable as regular mounts and faster?  Or are
there issues that I haven't noticed?

Or are you guys testing for the FreeBSD project?

-Alfred


> 
> Bye,
>    Ronald
> -- 
> * The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812032307510.7329-100000>