Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 01:54:58 -0400 From: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, stable@freebsd.org, David Kirchner <dpk@dpk.net> Subject: Re: quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1 Message-ID: <44599732.1050905@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <20060504044758.GA41047@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <44579EE1.6010300@rogers.com> <20060502180557.GA91762@xor.obsecurity.org> <4457A02C.9040408@rogers.com> <20060502182302.GA92027@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060503110503.O58458@fledge.watson.org> <35c231bf0605031821s582b6d03j3ee9d434a596f62a@mail.gmail.com> <20060504021908.GA714@soaustin.net> <35c231bf0605032011s65fbb1aby742438465ee98ee7@mail.gmail.com> <20060504033300.GA39935@xor.obsecurity.org> <44598615.3040400@rogers.com> <20060504044758.GA41047@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:41:57AM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote: > >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >>> You missed the part where snapshots have caused deadlocks under >>> varying conditions since day 1. They have never worked 100% reliably, >>> and despite our best efforts that will remain true with 6.1. >>> >>> Kris >>> >>> >> Then why utilize a known non-functional technology? >> > > Because again, the benefits have been judged by the decision-makers > and found to outweigh the drawbacks. Perhaps that's just a difficult > concept for some people to understand if they're used to thinking of > everything in binary terms. > Yes, i am sorry, but i fail to understand why i would want to use something that i know does not work correctly. I think there are quite a few of those "drawbacks" that are pissed off.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44599732.1050905>