From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 30 17: 2:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E039B15343; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:02:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #4) id 123qSj-000Bhp-00; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:02:37 -0800 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:02:33 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Peter Wemm Cc: Matthew Dillon , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates and debug.max_softdeps In-Reply-To: <19991231004902.01D721CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Peter Wemm wrote: > FYI: On hub.freebsd.org (the freebsd mailing list server), if we activate > softupdates on the disk containing the postfix spool, the machine reboots > (silently if I recall correctly) within 5 minutes of postfix starting up. > > This is a much smaller system of course, with smaller memory and filesystem > working set. (postfix spool of ~50-80MB, 256MB ram). I thought I'd post > this as a real-use datapoint. That is interesting. So I guess the conclusion to this is, softupdates is useful for bursty IO, but not sustained because it can get far behind until it eventually reaches the point where the machine reboots silently. I guess the delay until reboot is dependent on the size of max_softdeps. If it is big, it takes a while. I still think that the default value of max_softdeps might be too big for the kernel memory space. > -- > Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au > Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message