Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 14:10:45 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902201351410.31494-100000@feral-gw> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902202145390.82049-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > As of the last set of fixes that added some more splbio protection, the > > testing has gone a lot better. Many thanks. Now I'll start raising the bar > > from 9GB filesystems to > 100GB filesystems with larger blocksizes (unless > > someone says "No! No! Don't do that!") > > Its good that your panic seems to have been addressed but I can't see any > quick solutions for the responsiveness problem. It appears to be a > combination of the way that BSD looks up pathnames and the lack of any > mechanism from stopping writer processes from monopolising the i/o queues. yes, I saw the mail. fixing the panic is the first step. I'm not entirely sure that the root inode lock is the whole problem. I think another problem may be just growing very large delayed write queues- there doesn't seem to be any way any more to keep a single process from blowing the whole buffer cache- but I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge of this area of unix internals is 7-10 years old. -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9902201351410.31494-100000>