Sean Davis <dive-nb@endersgame.net> writes:
>> > I don't recall exactly who said what, but I do know that every time I've
>> > tried NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY, once I put the system under some heavy load, any
>> > interactive apps I have running come to a screeching halt (we're talking 30
>> > second lag between a keystroke and the letter showing up in an xterm here).
>> >
>> > Please do not make it the default.
>> 
>> Er, that's the behavior I get when I *don't* use NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY.
>> Many others have the same complaint. That's why I use it, and that's
>> why a lot of us would like it as the default.
>
> Are you running with softdeps enabled, too?

Yes.

> I've had softdeps and new_bufq_strategy bring this system to it's
> knees when doing a lot of stuff at once - but running without
> softdeps, without new_bufq_strategy, everything works just fine. (I
> don't trust softdep in NetBSD; perhaps it's just a -current thing,
> but it seems that every time I try it, and put the system under
> serious load, it locks the machine and causes tons of data loss.)

That's really bizarre. First, I've been using softdeps for years now
without any issues, under a wide variety of kernels. Second, I get
serious problems with I/O pausing for long periods if I don't turn on
NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY....

.pm