DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2008-06
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2008-06
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HAMMER lockup

To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Neumann <mneumann@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:56:27 +0200

Matthew Dillon wrote:
:found disconnected inode 000000010411441e
:[diagnostic] cache_lock: blocked on 0xc1529aa8 "log.smbd"
:log.smbd is strangely on a UFS partition.
:I know this is hard to debug but posted here as maybe we can sort it out
:anyway. I am glad to provide the information you need and perform the
:necessary tests as there is no sensitive data on this rig.
:-- :Gergo Szakal MD <bastyaelvtars@gmail.com>
:University Of Szeged, HU

    Try it with all the recent commits.  If it is still locking up
    break into the debugger and do a 'ps' to see what the processes
    are all stuck on.

    I've fixed a couple of issues, half of which were in the kernel
    itself.  So far my test box running with hw.physmem="128m" is
    still alive.

This sounds like Hammer will be very well suited for embedded products like NAS boxes. Indeed Hammer would make a great product as a combined backup/file-server appliance, using CIFS to serve Windows clients.

I am curious how much CPU such an appliance would ideally need, i.e. how
CPU-bound Hammer is, for example compared to UFS. Any recommendations?
For example would a low-power 1 GHZ single-core Sempron work out well or
is it better to use a Quad-core? I'm happy with any qualitative

Thanks in advance.


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]