From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 1 21:16:32 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C3216A41A for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:16:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi@bonkers.video-collage.com) Received: from bonkers.video-collage.com (static-151-204-231-237.bos.east.verizon.net [151.204.231.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3856913C47E for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:16:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi@bonkers.video-collage.com) Received: from bonkers.video-collage.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bonkers.video-collage.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m01LGQtb012861; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:16:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mi@bonkers.video-collage.com) Received: (from mi@localhost) by bonkers.video-collage.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m01LGQhN012860; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:16:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mi) From: Mikhail Teterin Message-Id: <200801012116.m01LGQhN012860@bonkers.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <477A4594.7050304@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:16:26 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL124 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/5330/Tue Jan 1 15:33:57 2008 on bonkers.video-collage.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:28:01 +0000 Cc: efinleywork@efinley.com, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: a new way to hang 7.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:16:32 -0000 > >>> Is this really a new way, or is it well known already? Thanks! -L > >>has been hanging systems ever since it existed. Don't use it. > > > > Why does `dump' implore me to use it, then? > Because the previous poster is being uncharitable with the facts :) I'd say both previous posters reported problems -- their tone was different, but both reported their glass being, uhm, less then full :) > There are a history of problems with -L (more generally, UFS > snapshots), but these are believed to have been fixed over the past 2 > years. Since you are claiming to have found a new one, please follow > up with the usual kernel debugging so someone can try and study it. I'll try, but I am not, unfortunately, well setup for kernel debugging. Most of the time I only have one system, and can't afford to hang it even for a short while. > > I wonder, if this is also a problem on DragonFlyBSD... > > Since Dragonfly is FreeBSD 4 + some stuff it is unlikely that it even > supports UFS snapshots. Yes, you are right. I confused the -L with the -C option... Thanks, -mi