:On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:32:04AM -0800, Matthew Dillon
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:> sysctl -a | fgrep dirty
:> sysctl -w vfs.lodirtybuffers=X
:> sysctl -w vfs.hidirtybuffers=Y
:
:Matt, I've tried your patch to sys/kern/vfs_bio.c, made no difference.
:Lowering the vfs.hidirt
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 09:32:04AM -0800, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> sysctl -a | fgrep dirty
> sysctl -w vfs.lodirtybuffers=X
> sysctl -w vfs.hidirtybuffers=Y
Matt, I've tried your patch to sys/kern/vfs_bio.c, made no difference.
Lowering the vfs.hidirtybuffer
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 11:18:18AM -0800, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Try this patch to -current, it should solve the problem. I've been
> meaning to fixup the buf_daemon for a while. This solves the
> buf_daemon problem. We still will not be entirely optimal due
:The source filesystems were both standard with bsize 8192 and fsize
:1024. Target filesystems were nonstandard.
:
:I umounted the source filesystem, in the exact case /usr (/dev/ad0s1e),
:then mounted target filesystem to /mnt, cd to /mnt and
:
:dump -0a -f - /dev/ad0s1e | restore rf -
:--
:
:Va
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 08:48:30AM -0800, "Rodney W. Grimes"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few more details please. Are you having problems when you are
> dumping from a file system formatted as above, or is it a restore
> going to this type of file system, or are both the source and destinati
:> suggesting following flags for filesystem creation for newer, bigger
:> disks:
:>
:> newfs -b16384 -f2048 -u2048 -c128 -i4096
:>
:> I've used them since with no problems whatsoever. Now I got the dump
:> done on the machine with default filesystem, the bugger is unusual
:> filesystem I guess
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 10:47:59AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's very annoying, I have only fair experiences with dump/restore back
> > to the 2.2.2 days until now.
>
> Sorry for the long post and partially? false alert.
>
> Something in my mind wak
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 10:47:59AM +0200, Vallo Kallaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[snip]
> It's very annoying, I have only fair experiences with dump/restore back
> to the 2.2.2 days until now.
Sorry for the long post and partially? false alert.
Something in my mind waked up and I checked w
Hello !
Something is weird with standard dump/restore procedure which I've
always used to relocate my filesystems. I'm using 4.0-19991208-CURRENT
on two machines, one is my home machine with SiS 5591 ATA controller and
the other one has Intel PIIX. Home machine has disk pair Seagate 6.4GB
and IBM
