Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:05:43 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, stable@freebsd.org, David Kirchner <dpk@dpk.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1 Message-ID: <20060505080543.GD5466@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <44599732.1050905@rogers.com> References: <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> <44599732.1050905@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:54:58AM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote: +> Kris Kennaway wrote: +> >On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:41:57AM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote: +> >>Then why utilize a known non-functional technology? +> >> =20 +> > +> >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. +> > =20 +>=20 +>=20 +> Yes, i am sorry, but i fail to understand why i would want to use someth= ing that i know does not work correctly. I think there are quite a few of t= hose "drawbacks" that are=20 +> pissed off. I'm using bgfsck very often and I didn't have problems with it. Those hangs aren't so easy to trigger in everyday use. There are serval committers, including me and Kris who work on those hangs very hard for more than two week now. The problem is that VFS is very complex and there are many subtle bugs. We found few more problems with snapshots, which weren't reported by users, because of our extensive testing. Fixing one bug, uncovers another one, etc., but as I said those bug don't touch every user and don't make UFS to hang always making FreeBSD unusable. Some of those bugs are maybe quite easy to fix, so the only risk here are latent bugs the fix can uncover, but some of them need a lot of work to fix properly and be sure nothing else will break. That's why fixing those bugs must include extensive testing on many different work-loads. We can't just commit those and hope for the best. The point here is that FreeBSD is as good as their developers are professional and responsible and belive me, committing quick hacks to fix those issues can break 6.1-RELEASE for much more users, who will then send mails to freebsd-stable@ saying "Is FreeBSD a professional operating system or a joke? How can they ship a release with broken, untested code?". Do you think that answering "We had two users who insisted on fixing those bugs just before release, blame them!" would satisfy them? It isn't good to release a software with known, documented bugs, but its better than shipping an untested software with god-one-knows unknown bugs. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! --eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEWwdXForvXbEpPzQRAo0UAKDFVK1wgQyfggZC2hdUju3wOnWE2ACgtEX4 gCJS49rhBWa3beBQm/V6fbs= =KzRs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eqp4TxRxnD4KrmFZ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060505080543.GD5466>