Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5TGvmnC006076 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:57:48 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g5TGvmZx006075 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:57:48 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from sgi.com (sgi-too.SGI.COM [204.94.211.39]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5TGvcnC006047 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:57:38 -0700 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id KAA05226 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (waltabbyh@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2iniaah.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.41.81] helo=waltsathlon.localhost.net) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17OLRg-0004iA-00 for linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:51:36 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by waltsathlon.localhost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5EF8EAF489; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D1DE56A.50001@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:50:50 -0700 From: Walt H User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020618 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Mei Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: Bug about XFS-1.0.1 on 2.4.5 References: <3D1D647F.3070302@mountainviewdata.com> <1025365517.20112.18.camel@Liberator> <3D1DDC5E.1010403@mountainviewdata.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Eric, There were many VM issues all the way up to the current kernels IMHO. However, the most recent stable kernel, 2.4.18, seems to work quite well. I've got a couple of servers at work running 2.4.18 with no problems. One of them with over 100 days of continuous uptime running on XFS that's used as a samba/netatalk fileserver for 25+ clients, DNS, DHCP and squid proxy server. So far, it's been solid. The Linux VM was completely redone in 2.4.10 and took a few kernel releases after that to really settle down. 2.4.18 seems to be the first really solid 2.4 series kernel for me. Hope that helps, -Walt Eric Mei wrote: > Thanks a lot! > > As you know, if we try to backport vm fixes to 2.4.5, which kernel have > most probably addressed this issue? 2.4.7? There is no evidence about it > from kenrel ChangeLog. > > Sorry to occupy XFS's bandwidth again :-) > > > Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 03:40, Eric Mei wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Team, >>> >>>This is a long report. I know some of you might be busy on kernel >>>summit, we just can's believe XFS has such a serious bug. >> >> >>s/has/had/ >> >> >> >>>For some reason, we must stick on 2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1. >> >> >>You're essentially saying that you must stick with old, (apparently) >>buggy code. We simply don't have the bandwidth to support xfs & kernel >>code from 1 year ago. >> >>Your best bet would be to look through the mailing list archives to see >>if anyone has had a similar problem, and see if a mod was checked in to >>fix it; then try to backport that fix. >> >>http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/mail_archive/200108/msg00307.html >> >>This thread makes it sound like it may well be an underlying kernel >>problem with 2.4.5-era kernels. >> >>-Eric > >