Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:00:30 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vnode::v_op bugfix / PERFORCE change 8574 for review (fwd) Message-ID: <p0510152eb8c96b7c9b78@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <200203282327.g2SNRog05733@green.bikeshed.org> References: <200203282327.g2SNRog05733@green.bikeshed.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 6:27 PM -0500 3/28/02, Brian F. Feldman wrote: >Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com> wrote: > > I concur with your suggestion below that the new patch > > is a better approach. Your ideal solution below sounds > > reasonable though I have not thought it through completely. > >I really, really hate the idea that the machine will panic >without warning if the number of vnode ops to be used >becomes greather than the statically-defined limit. Isn't >there some truly generic solution? A previous message said new vnode-ops are very rare. I do not know what would trigger them, but I will note that one of the things I can brag about with freebsd is that I have a freebsd machine running a production service here which has now been up for 437 consecutive days. Are these events rare enough that I would never have to worry about ending an uptime-streak because of too many of them? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510152eb8c96b7c9b78>