Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!uudell!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SV1K reliability (summary)
Keywords: SV1K reliability
Message-ID: <51008@bigtex.cactus.org>
Date: 11 Dec 90 02:59:18 GMT
References: <7454@suns302.cel.co.uk> <1630@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Organization: Dell Computer Corporation, Austin TX
Lines: 29

In <1630@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>, debra@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra)
	wrote:

> I have experimented with sVr4.0 version 2.0 and can only say that the
> ufs file system is horribly unreliable.

I recently converted my unix machine at work to our (Dell) SysVr4
product using a 650meg UFS (aka, BSD) file system.  It's worked quite
well for me.  Since the conversion I have had only one panic, and
raid.dell.com has been running on some pretty experimental hardware.
That one panic came on a machine that had wires attached to #ADS and
#RDY on the 386, and the wires might have touched something (or the
wires may have been too long and killed the machine as the chips
warmed up).

I have run raid.dell.com on both 386 and 486 platforms.  I have used
TCP/IP quite a bit (and it's a substantial improvement over SysVr3),
but have not tried NFS, RFS or X11r4 yet.

> Apparently the sVr4.0 ufs file system doesn't get sync-ed properly
> by the automatic syncing deamon...

SysVr4 apparently has taken some steps backwards in syncing.  NAUTOUP
apparently isn't used even though it appears with the configuration
parameters, and instead init(1m) does a sync(2) call periodically - a
particularly inelegant solution.
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen          james@bigtex.cactus.org   "Live Free or Die"
Dell Computer Co    9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759         512-338-8789