Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:58:02 +1200 From: Philip Murray <pmurray@nevada.net.nz> To: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.1 Memory Exhaustion Message-ID: <BF8D2D25-AD1F-4D9C-A70F-831CAC621059@nevada.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <55A3A800.5060904@denninger.net> References: <CAB2_NwCngPqFH4q-YZk00RO_aVF9JraeSsVX3xS0z5EV3YGa1Q@mail.gmail.com> <55A3A800.5060904@denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 13/07/2015, at 11:58 pm, Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> wrote: >=20 > Put this on your box and see if the problem goes away.... :-) >=20 > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D187594 >=20 Is there a concise explanation of why this hasn=92t been merged into = -CURRENT?=20 I know there are concerns that it isn=92t the proper fix, but I can=92t = find any discussion of the argument against it. Only people with positive reports about it fixing = people=92s problems. Sorry if this keeps getting asked but I couldn=92t find a good reason = why not documented=20 anywhere, which could form a reason not to use the patch in certain = situations. (I have about 24TB about to go into production on ZFS, so I=92m = particularly interested in it) Cheers Phil=20=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BF8D2D25-AD1F-4D9C-A70F-831CAC621059>