Subject: Re: Why not softdep per default?
To: Michael Graff <explorer@flame.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
List: current-users
Date: 03/29/2005 17:08:27
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Michael Graff wrote:

> On Tuesday 29 March 2005 09:57, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> > Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE> writes:
> > > On a VAX, you're lucky if the system lives 10 minutes before it
> > > crash. And that is still true in -current.
> >
> > Uh -- my 4000-500 has been running with softdeps on all file systems
> > for a couple of weeks now, spending most of that time churning through
> > software builds, with lots of disk I/O.  Not a glitch to be seen.  :-)
>
> Try unplugging it while it's mid-build.  If that works, try it 10 times more
> at various points.  If you FS lives, cool.  Mine does not, on i386.
>
> softdep works wonderfully in use, but it's the failure cases that toast
> filesystems, from my experience.

I don't have to do anything expect run build.sh. Give it a few minutes,
and my machine is hung. And fsck on that filesystem is then no fun, but
without softdep, it don't hang.

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol