Re: WAPBL patch for testing

[Juergen Hannken-Illjes <hannken%eis.cs.tu-bs.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 11:58:19AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 10:42:25AM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 10:36:12AM +0100, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> > > > For snapshots, the real problem is that the strategy of
> > > > fss doesn't handle WAPBL as it should.
> > > 
> > > And how should fss handle wapbl?
> > 
> > It should know by itself if it has to initiate a transaction or not
> > because it is called from within or just via VOP_PUTPAGE.
> 
> It already has a perfectly good notion of a "transaction".  WAPBL added
> a second one.  This is not fss's fault, it's hasty coding on the part of
> the person who ported WAPBL to modern NetBSD (which may have been the
> right compromise but it's still not a good situation, in the abstract).
> 
> > Given that fss is a reliable way to crash the machine anyway as soon
> > as trying to remove the snapshot, I'm not sure I care about it right
> > now.
> 
> I do, and so do a lot of other people.  We cannot presently take consistent
> backups of several of the NetBSD.org servers because fss is broken -- which
> is a severe problem, much worse than a performance issue we could address
> by adding hardware.  A number of our servers are still on 4.0 because we
> need fss.  I think there are probably a lot of people in this situation,
> because they care more about correctness than speed.

Which PR's address these crashes of fss?

-- 
Juergen Hannken-Illjes - hannken%eis.cs.tu-bs.de@localhost - TU Braunschweig 
(Germany)