Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:07:54 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Periodic jobs lockf timeout Message-ID: <20171024160754.36f00c0a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <AEF2CF7D-BFAC-4ACE-95F2-EF5026E89959@sarenet.es> References: <AEF2CF7D-BFAC-4ACE-95F2-EF5026E89959@sarenet.es>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:07:31 +0200
Borja Marcos wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> I=E2=80=99ve come across a problem with the =E2=80=9Cdaily=E2=80=9D secur=
ity job. On an
> overloaded system with lots of ZFS datasets, lots of files, heavy
> system load and, to add insult to injury, a ZFS crub going on the
> find=E2=80=99s issued by the periodic checks can take forever. They can t=
ake
> so long, I have found several lockf=E2=80=99s waiting.
>=20
> Is it sane to have an unlimited timeout for lockf? Probably it would
> be better to have at least a configurable timeout=20
What problem does this solve?
>=20
> There=E2=80=99s even a parameter on /etc/defaults/periodic.conf but it se=
ems
> it=E2=80=99s not used right now.
>=20
> # Max time to sleep to avoid causing congestion on download servers
> anticongestion_sleeptime=3D3600
In 11.1 it's used in the file it's defined in:
sleep `jot -r 1 0 ${anticongestion_sleeptime}`
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171024160754.36f00c0a>