Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:11:32 +0000 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@internetcds.com>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, iedowse@maths.tcd.ie Subject: Re: Repeated panic in 4.2-stable Message-ID: <200101092011.aa63743@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:46:44 PST." <200101091946.f09JkiU50586@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200101091946.f09JkiU50586@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes: >:here's a backtrace from a debugging kernel. (I have the >:vmcore and kernel file if anybody wants me to poke around >:a bit more: > > If you could make the vmcore availabel to me (give me the > path in private email), along with the debug kernel image > if you have it, /var/run/dmesg.boot, and kernel configuration, > I will take a look at it. I had suggested to Jaye that he use a filesystem with 16k/4k blocks/frags, since the ffs code was writing off the end of the superblock fs_csp[] array with 8k/1k blocks (I'm working on getting this fixed). Since then I noticed an old message from one of the mailing lists (I can't seem to find it right now) mentioning that people have seen significant problems running big filesystems with less than 8 frags per block. I think a 16k/2k filesystem will still avoid the superblock corruption, so this would be worth a try instead. However, we should obviously try to find what is causing the problems with non-standard frags per block... Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <200101092011.aa63743>