From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 2 01:49:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F92016A4D8 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:49:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF0543D41 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:49:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i821nk4i019103; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:49:46 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <41364574.8070201@elischer.org> References: <20040901193445.GC12483@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41364574.8070201@elischer.org> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:49:45 -0400 To: Julian Elischer From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: if_data size issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:49:51 -0000 At 2:56 PM -0700 9/1/04, Julian Elischer wrote: >Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >>We could certainly install the fix from Peter in the >>4.10-stable and 4.10-errata branches, for instance. It shouldn't >>hurt anything to have that fix installed ASA-SufficientlyTested. > >And people upgrading from (say) 4.8 ? (we have 1000 machines on >4.8 in active production.. i.e. no patches.. no changes.. no nothing >except when approved in tripplicate and with your first-born held >as hostage in case they need you to back it out) I am just saying that we do not *hurt* anyone or anything if we add the fix to 4.10-stable and 4.10-errata. I do also realize that it does not help everyone, either. I'm just thinking we might as well get the fix in as-soon-as-practical. In a later message, Brooks Davis wrote: > >Given the pain this change is causing and the limited impact of >reducing the precision of ifi_epoch, I propose the following: > > - Back out the ifi_epoch addition. > - MT5 and MT4 Peter's size change. > - Turn ifi_unused into ifi_epoch. Given the time-constraints in that we want a solution "right now", these seem like good ideas. > - After 5.3 is released, declare that upgrades to 6.0 from releases > other then 4.x (x>=11) and 5.y (y>=3) require special handling > and allow if_data to grow as demand requires. > - If additional precision is deemed necessary at some future date, > add a second ifi_epoch_tv. We do not have to come to an agreement on these steps until we are ready to make additional changes to the structure. Something along these lines seems reasonable to me, but I don't think that we have to declare any specific timetables right now. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu