Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:27:59 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Vallo Kallaste <kalts@estpak.ee>, David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "leak" in softupdates? Message-ID: <20030307152045.P18433@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <200303070648.26984.wes@softweyr.com> References: <20030305204526.T38115@hub.org> <20030307101718.GA1908@kevad.internal> <20030307081643.B15693@hub.org> <200303070648.26984.wes@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Wes Peters wrote: > > As Vallo says above ... the 'bug' that Tor helped me fix this past > > week, with vnlru_proc, being a good example ... how many ppl are > > running their server with 132 active mount points? From what I can > > tell, the bugs I'm hitting are all 'fringe bugs', stuff that you really > > have to be doing something extreme to hit ... but, as such, if I can > > get the bug fixed, its also one less bug that has the chance of hurting > > someone else ... > > Yes, indeed, and I suspect bugs like that generally get fixed a lot faster > here than when you submit a similar bug report in Solaris or HP-UX. Solaris fixes bugs? Seriously though, I really can't say that I can complain about the speed and effort that bugs get fixed ... the bug I just experienced with vnodes, Tor did one better (for which I *really* appreciate) ... he guided me, and forced me, to figure out what was wrong and come up with a solution ... he ended up doing the final patch, since there is no way I would have been able to come up with the same solution (nor as cleanly), but I *understood* what his patch did by the time we were finished ... even when Matt helped with some VM issues awhile back, the messages that he included me in literally flew over my head, but I appreciate having been kept in that loop, and know I've absorb bits and pieces that will help improve my understanding ... > Being worked on. Not so hard to do, much harder to do right. Guess who > took the easy sleazy path? ;^) The other good news is that the intel > network cards, both 10/100 (fxp) and 10/100/1000 (em) support 64-bit > addressing, even in 32-bit PCI slots, so you'll have at least ONE enet > interface that'll work reasonably fast. Yes, I don't recall who it was that explained it to me (Terry, maybe?), but I understand the problem with going above 4gig under ia32, and was personally just sitting back and waiting for Intel to go full steam ahead on the ia64 stuff ... but they just sacked it :( Man, did that ever throw a shiver up my back ... 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?20030307152045.P18433>