Matthew Dillon wrote: >:One of our file systems here does, indeed, use large block size (64K, I >:think, not sure, how to verify it) -- it is used for storing large >:database dumps. Are the bugs, Bruce and Matt are talking about, supposed >:to be gone by now (in which case, I can provide more debugging info), or >:does this remain a "known problem" and I should simply adopt the >:workaround suggested by Bruce in the first link above -- increase >:BKVASIZE? Should I also merge the patch posted by Bruce in the last of >:the links above, or are there good reasons, it is not in the official tree? > > [...] > But to be absolutely safe, I would follow Bruce's original suggestion > and increase BKVASIZE to 64K, for your particular system. > > After doing this and testing our backup script, the machine panicked two hours later (about half-way through the backup) with "initiate_write_inodeblock_ufs2: already started" (in ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c)... I guess, block sizes above 16Kb are just buggy and newfs(8) should be honest about it... -miReceived on Wed Oct 13 2004 - 01:43:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:17 UTC