From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] cwfs(4) failing: phase error after recover or suicide From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:00:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <509071940709201853k37071185xe44fd08b14dff851@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: c29ba49a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > the fworm, not the cache? hrm, interesting. it's exactly the same > disks, but i suppose that could be it. i'll take a look at that and > how the bitmap is maintained. i'd expect problems there to show up in > the explicit recover phase (which cwfs's prints say has completed), > but it's worth a check. dropping the "f" is non-destructive in the > face of recover? yes. recover doesn't touch the w part of the device. it just checks the block after the last block in each dump to see if it's a sb. if it is it loops. if it is not, then you're at the end and the cache is cleared. > maintain" line of thought. the kenfs is also quite old now, and the > size reflects that; i'm considering just moving everything on it over > to venti and putting the box in storage. not to mention a desire to > reduce my power consumption and noise production. kenfs does run on new hardware. i'm currently running it on an intel 5000-series processor and a brand new mb at coraid. it also does great with my valinux pIII at home. > i still think the stand-alone fs has its place, but i don't think my > garage is it. electricity: $5/month. noise: too much. not doing maintence to the fs: priceless. =E2=98=BA - erik