On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 11:35 +0200, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > 2007/10/19, Tim Bishop <tim-lists_at_bishnet.net>: > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 06:40:04PM +0200, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > > > are softupdates on ? > > > > > > > > Yes. Turning them off seems to fix the problem (fingers crossed - I > > only > > > > turned it off this morning, didn't have a panic yet) > > > > > > After working for a whole day without softupdates, I can say that > > turning > > > them off at least causes less panics to happen than with them turned on, > > > maybe they even don't happen at all without softupdates; I haven't had a > > > panic all day, while I have one every few hours with softupdates turned > > on. > > > > I've been running for the best part of a day now with softupdates turned > > off and so far no panics. I'm running tinderbox on the host, and it > > would quite reliably crash it before. > > > > Of course it's hard to say if this has fixed the problem... maybe it > > doesn't happen as often, or maybe my data is being slowly chewed up > > instead ;-) > > It looks like on the same system, I'm able to reliably panic zfs as well, > under the exact same conditions (i.e. linking a particularly big piece of > software). Maybe this is not a problem in the filesystem at all. I've not > been able to get a coredump yet from the zfs panic. > This is in 7.0-PRERELEASE, btw (I switched to RELENG_7 when the branching > happened). Is anyone who had been able to trigger this panic still having problems with recent kernels (and soft updates turned on)? I've checked with a few people who had been experiencing the panic and they can no longer trigger it. It's at least a tiny bit possible some of the VM fixes that have gone in addressed this problem. We'd like to find out if anyone can still trigger this. Thanks. -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith_at_cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:21 UTC