panic in ffs (Re: hangs in nbufkv)
kris at obsecurity.org
Tue Oct 12 13:48:41 PDT 2004
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> 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...
> : -mi
> Well, it's possible that UFS has bugs related to large block sizes.
> People have gotten bitten on and off over the years but usually it
> works ok if you leave the 8:1 blocksize:fragsize ratio intact. e.g.
> if you have a 64KB block size then you should use a 8K frag size.
> If you have a 32KB block size then you should use a 4K frag size.
> I think the buffer cache itself is is likely not the source of this
> particular bug.
FYI, I ran the package build cluster with 4:1 ratios for a few months
and did not have problems. If there are major bugs there I would have
expected to come across them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20041012/8723d4cd/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-current