Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:18:26 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates and debug.max_softdeps Message-ID: <20000101151826.L1528@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199912310634.WAA00620@mass.cdrom.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9912301650520.9644-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> <199912310634.WAA00620@mass.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 30 December 1999 at 22:34:04 -0800, Mike Smith wrote: >> 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 mentioned this a while back in the context of suspended I/O (in this > case, a RAID array busy dealing with a failed disk). There wasn't much > interest in dealing with it evinced at that point. On a related topic, I've taken to limiting the number of outstanding transactions in Vinum, mainly to try to hunt down some strange consistency problems when a very large number of transactions were outstanding (for those of you who have been following this, this was the "NULL b_biodone" syndrome). I still think there is a problem hidden in the system which causes this. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000101151826.L1528>