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>