On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, sebastian ssmoller wrote: > > I believe the report was that it happened if you performed a large I/O > > operation just after booting with a dirty filesystem, so it was running > > concurrently with bgfsck. > > this could be a point - when i got that panic i had one before (hardware > compatibility problems with geforce2, via kt 133 and amd) and i booted > with a dirty fs (of course running bgfsck). > in this situation i started portupgrade (ok possible not a good idea :) > ... Looks like I have something to test. If you do this regularly and don't mind waiting, you can disable background fsck via a rc.conf option. > > It might be repeatable with a generic snapshot. > > i am not sure whether i want to "repeat" it with my system - i could > cause data loss, couldnt it ? Potentially, but my theory was to create a junk filessytem on a test machine, dump /usr/ports on it, take a snapshot, then do somethign else nasty to that FS, like copy another /usr/ports tree onto it. Its also possible that its some sort of conflict between the fack doing an update and the I/O touching the same file or something. More experimentation is needed! -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite_at_gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Mon Jan 19 2004 - 08:01:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:39 UTC