On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:19:59PM -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2012-11-23, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Do whatever you want - you might be waiting a while for CentOS to
> > fix it, though, because they don't fix user reported bugs. They just
> > repackage whatever Red Hat releases as RHEL.
> Yes, that's why I was asking--I was wondering whether it is safe to wait
> for what could be some time for a) RHEL to decide to patch (if they do
> so at all), b) RHEL to patch, and c) CentOS to patch. IOW, is the high
> load the only likely symptom of the originail aild patch, or are there
> potentially other problems, such as performance degradation that I
> haven't seen yet, that would make waiting for CentOS unwise?
There is no side effect other than the load. There are not
performance issues with the ailds behaving like this.
> >> Do you know why I might not see this behavior on a different CentOS 6.x
> >> kernel?
> >> Linux xxxxxx 2.6.32-279.5.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Aug 24 01:07:11 UTC 2012
> >> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > Because the log hang bug hadn't been fixed in that kernel.
> This actually gives me some optimism that RHEL might introduce a new
> kernel sooner rather than later--that kernel wasn't all that long ago,
> and there have been quite a few (mostly unrelated) patches since.
Doubt it. Given that I'm the RHEL XFS maintainer....
> (That's why I was so surprised--I'm not used to the RHEL kernel moving
> so quickly!)
What, you're not used to having serious bugs fixed quickly? That's
why people pay for RHEL...