if_data size issues
Garance A Drosihn
drosih at rpi.edu
Wed Sep 1 18:49:51 PDT 2004
At 2:56 PM -0700 9/1/04, Julian Elischer wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>>We could certainly install the fix from Peter in the
>>4.10-stable and 4.10-errata branches, for instance. It shouldn't
>>hurt anything to have that fix installed ASA-SufficientlyTested.
>
>And people upgrading from (say) 4.8 ? (we have 1000 machines on
>4.8 in active production.. i.e. no patches.. no changes.. no nothing
>except when approved in tripplicate and with your first-born held
>as hostage in case they need you to back it out)
I am just saying that we do not *hurt* anyone or anything if we add
the fix to 4.10-stable and 4.10-errata. I do also realize that it
does not help everyone, either. I'm just thinking we might as well
get the fix in as-soon-as-practical.
In a later message, Brooks Davis wrote:
>
>Given the pain this change is causing and the limited impact of
>reducing the precision of ifi_epoch, I propose the following:
>
> - Back out the ifi_epoch addition.
> - MT5 and MT4 Peter's size change.
> - Turn ifi_unused into ifi_epoch.
Given the time-constraints in that we want a solution "right now",
these seem like good ideas.
> - After 5.3 is released, declare that upgrades to 6.0 from releases
> other then 4.x (x>=11) and 5.y (y>=3) require special handling
> and allow if_data to grow as demand requires.
> - If additional precision is deemed necessary at some future date,
> add a second ifi_epoch_tv.
We do not have to come to an agreement on these steps until we are
ready to make additional changes to the structure. Something along
these lines seems reasonable to me, but I don't think that we have
to declare any specific timetables right now.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih at rpi.edu
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list