Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:22:46 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: bright@hotjobs.com (Alfred Perlstein) Cc: kuehn@rz.tu-clausthal.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: ffs_blkfree: bad size Message-ID: <199812040522.VAA68094@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812032307510.7329-100000@bright.fx.genx.net> from Alfred Perlstein at "Dec 3, 1998 11:10: 8 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Alfred Perlstein: > > 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? > Well, FFS with sync mounts has been reliable for me for 4 years until this commit. -- Steve finger kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~clesceri/kargl.html 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?199812040522.VAA68094>