Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:49:02 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vnode::v_op bugfix / PERFORCE change 8574 for review (fwd) Message-ID: <200203290149.g2T1n2r06394@green.bikeshed.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:00:30 EST." <p0510152eb8c96b7c9b78@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote: > 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? It's not likely to happen, I imagine, but I'd rather to make it "impossible" to happen rather than just not likely. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org <> bfeldman@tislabs.com \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ 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?200203290149.g2T1n2r06394>