Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:04:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: toasty@home.dragondata.com (Kevin Day) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, dg@root.com, green@zone.syracuse.NET, grog@lemis.com, julian@whistle.com, mike@smith.net.au, bag@sinbin.demos.su, rock@cs.uni-sb.de, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current NFS problem Message-ID: <199810160004.RAA28932@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199810152256.RAA20521@home.dragondata.com> from "Kevin Day" at Oct 15, 98 05:56:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I don't think it's just architectural problems that people are complaining > over though. Of course it's not. People are complaining that the house is out of square. Very few people actually complain about architectural problems, and the people who do tend to get yelled at. > I'd be perfectly happy to go back to 3.0 if nfs didn't cause kernel panic's. > I can deal with the limitations that freebsd's implementation has, as long > as one of those limitations isn't "Don't expect a >24 hour uptime, if > you're making heavy use of NFS." > > 2.2 is stablish when it comes to NFS. I get randomly corrupted files, but > it's so rare, i don't worry much about it. David Greenman poseted a vnode locking patch to the -hackers list some months ago that I believe would fix this particular problem for you. > 3.0 causes kernel panics up the > wazoo. (nfsbioread, Bad nfs svc reply, nfs rcvunlock, bwrite: buffer is not > busy???, etc..... page fault while in kernel mode comes up often, too) > > That's my only present beef when it comes to NFS. Ugh. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199810160004.RAA28932>