Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:47:10 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: unionfs related patch Message-ID: <20030904234610.G51587@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20030905015627.GB14776@HAL9000.homeunix.com> References: <20030612154312.J80219@hub.org> <20030623081927.GC27017@nevermind.kiev.ua> <20030905015627.GB14776@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, David Schultz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003, Alexandr Kovalenko wrote: > > Hello, Alexandr Kovalenko! > > > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:19:27AM +0300, you wrote: > > > > > > David Schultz, in his spare time, has been working through some of the > > > > issues I've been able to 'tweak' in the unionfs code ... as he is > > > > currently working on forward-patching it to -CURRENT right now, he can't > > > > commit the code to the -STABLE tree ... in order to allow others using > > > > unionfs to test the patch (I've been running it a few weeks now on a very > > > > heavily loaded system), with his permission, I've posted the patch for > > > > download at: > > > > > > > > http://www.hub.org/~scrappy/unionfs > > > > > > Looks like it pretty stable. I'm running ~10 days with this patch - no > > > even single panic. Thank you! > > > > I was too optimistic. It panics on high loads after 3-10 days. > > Is there any progress in work on this patch? > > The only thing I know to be wrong with the patch is that it looks > like I forgot to MFC it. Oops. Unfortunately, there's plenty > wrong with unionfs, even with the patch. Huh? You MFC'd it ... -STABLE from Saturday has the memory allocation stuff still in it: UNION mount 29 1K 1K204800K 30 0 0 32 undcac 0 0K 1K204800K 28159584 0 0 16 unpath 6086 104K 1853K204800K 26015006 0 0 16,32,64,128
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030904234610.G51587>