Re: HAMMER lockup

[Michael Neumann <mneumann@xxxxxxxx>]

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
answer...

Thanks in advance.

  Michael