On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:17:11AM -0800, Artem Belevich wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote:
Mysql uses more than 20G of RAM. You may want to tune it down a bit so
that there is a bit of free RAM around.
Page daemon is trying to maintain
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:17:11AM -0800, Artem Belevich wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote:
Mysql uses more than 20G of RAM. You may want to tune it down a bit so
that
Hi,
there's some effort to improve tuning(7). If somone could go over to
http://wiki.freebsd.org/SystemTuning and add some sentences, it will make the
life of other people maybe a little bit more easy
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Send via an Android device, please forgive brevity and typographic
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote:
Hello,
First: Happy new year to everybody!
Last year i had a problem with pagedaemon that i reported here[1] but i had
no replies. The problem went away and now it's back to beat me again.
Seems that mysql creates some
Thanks a lot for your fast reply Jeremy!
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 04:59:29AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote:
Hello,
First: Happy new year to everybody!
Last year i had a problem with pagedaemon that i reported here[1]
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Victor Balada Diaz vic...@bsdes.net wrote:
...
System wide totals computed every five seconds: (values in kilobytes)
===
Processes: (RUNQ: 2 Disk Wait: 0 Page Wait: 0 Sleep: 51)
Virtual Memory:
Yes, I agree. That was due to human error and me not paying enough
attention to what I was doing. Pretty embarrassing :)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail
2009/11/7 Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com:
Yes, loader values are one year old when I installed this machine.
But I think auto tuning was commited after 7.2-RELEASE by Kip Macy,
so some of them are still needed or am I wrong? (this is
7.2-RELEASE). ...
We don't know, because none
Ivan Voras wrote:
2009/11/6 Miroslav Lachman000.f...@quip.cz:
I do not understand why there are 10MB/s read from disks when network
traffic dropped to around 1MB/s (8Mbps)
r...@cage ~/# iostat -w 20
tty ad4 ad6 cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t
2009/11/7 Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz:
And as you noted, read, write, fault, total and percent are not updated on
machine with ZFS, so I can't compare it with UFS2 based machine.
Is this bug in top fixed in 8.x? Will you file a PR? (you know more about FS
related things than me :])
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 11:41:12PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Thomas Backman wrote:
On Nov 6, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
[..]
I have more strange issue with Lighttpd in jail on top
gnu...@alltel.blackberry.com wrote:
I can send in more documentation later but I am seeing severe zfs performance issues with lighttpd. Same machine using UFS will push 1gbit or more but same content and traffic load can not hit 200mbit. Ufs does around 3 megabytes/sec IO at 800mbit network but
gnu...@alltel.blackberry.com wrote:
I can send in more documentation later but I am seeing severe zfs performance issues with lighttpd. Same machine using UFS will push 1gbit or more but same content and traffic load can not hit 200mbit. Ufs does around 3 megabytes/sec IO at 800mbit network but
Ivan Voras wrote:
gnu...@alltel.blackberry.com wrote:
I can send in more documentation later but I am seeing severe zfs
performance issues with lighttpd. Same machine using UFS will push
1gbit or more but same content and traffic load can not hit 200mbit.
Ufs does around 3 megabytes/sec IO at
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
gnu...@alltel.blackberry.com wrote:
I can send in more documentation later but I am seeing severe zfs
performance issues with lighttpd. Same machine using UFS will push
1gbit or more but same content and traffic load can not hit 200mbit.
Ufs does
Ivan Voras wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
[..]
I have more strange issue with Lighttpd in jail on top of ZFS.
Lighttpd is serving static content (mp3 downloads thru flash player).
Is runs fine for relatively small number of parallel clients with
bandwidth about 30 Mbps, but after some number
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
[..]
I have more strange issue with Lighttpd in jail on top of ZFS.
Lighttpd is serving static content (mp3 downloads thru flash player).
Is runs fine for relatively small number of parallel clients with
bandwidth about 30
Russell Jackson wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
hi,
I seem to remember hearing an anecdote somewhere that using hundreds
(or thousands?) nullfs mounts for jails results in unreasonably bad
file system access performance. Does somebody have this kind of setup
/ is it true?
I was doing this with
2009/3/10 Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org:
hi,
I seem to remember hearing an anecdote somewhere that using hundreds
(or thousands?) nullfs mounts for jails results in unreasonably bad
file system access performance. Does somebody have this kind of setup
/ is it true?
~600-700 null mount
Ivan Voras wrote:
hi,
I seem to remember hearing an anecdote somewhere that using hundreds
(or thousands?) nullfs mounts for jails results in unreasonably bad
file system access performance. Does somebody have this kind of setup
/ is it true?
I was doing this with jails --before we moved to
Ivan Voras wrote:
I seem to remember hearing an anecdote somewhere that using hundreds
(or thousands?) nullfs mounts for jails results in unreasonably bad
file system access performance. Does somebody have this kind of setup
/ is it true?
I'm using about several readonly nullfs mounts per
:With madvise() and without msync(), there are high numbers of
:faults, which matches the number of disk io operations. It
:goes through cycles, every once in a while stalling while about
:60MB of data is dumped to disk at 20MB/s or so (buffers flushing?)
:At the beginning of each cycle it's
: 65074 python 0.06 CALL madvise(0x287c5000,0x70,_MADV_WILLNEED)
: 65074 python 0.027455 RET madvise 0
: 65074 python 0.58 CALL madvise(0x287c5000,0x1c20,_MADV_WILLNEED)
: 65074 python 0.016904 RET madvise 0
: 65074 python 0.000179 CALL
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:48:13PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: 65074 python 0.06 CALL madvise(0x287c5000,0x70,_MADV_WILLNEED)
: 65074 python 0.027455 RET madvise 0
: 65074 python 0.58 CALL madvise(0x287c5000,0x1c20,_MADV_WILLNEED)
: 65074 python 0.016904 RET
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Phillip N. wrote:
El vie, 11-01-2008 a las 18:15 +0100, Kris Kennaway escribió:
Krassimir reports that with these two fixes, the standard 7.0 kernel
has
performance:
#threadstransactions/sec
1 755
8
El vie, 11-01-2008 a las 18:15 +0100, Kris Kennaway escribió:
Krassimir reports that with these two fixes, the standard 7.0 kernel
has
performance:
#threadstransactions/sec
1 755
8 7129
40 6580
100 6768
Hi.
May i ask what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP DL380G5 using sysbench.
The results are comparable to:
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP DL380G5 using sysbench.
The results are comparable to:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:15:08 +0100
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Krassimir reports that with these two fixes, the standard 7.0 kernel
has performance:
#threads transactions/sec
1 755
8 7129
406580
100 6768
compared to Linux:
At 12:15 PM 1/11/2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Just to summarize some discussion we had off-list, this problem is
now resolved. It turned out to have two causes:
1) sysbench on linux was defaulting to using a unix domain socket to
communicate with pgsql, but FreeBSD was using TCP to 127.0.0.1.
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 12:15 PM 1/11/2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Just to summarize some discussion we had off-list, this problem is now
resolved. It turned out to have two causes:
1) sysbench on linux was defaulting to using a unix domain socket to
communicate with pgsql, but FreeBSD was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Here are lock profiling results with
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Here are lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Results with lock_manager and select patches and kern.hz=100
#threads#transactions/sec
1 582
5 2083
10 2030
20 2421
40 1739
60 1409
80 1124
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Here are lock profiling results with select patch applied.
OK, you are doing I/O over TCP. Are you sure you are using TCP on both
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Here are lock profiling results with select patch applied.
OK, you are doing I/O over TCP. Are you sure you
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Kris,
Here is the lock profiling results, see the attachment.
Please, let me know if you want ssh access to this machine?
Thanks, this is very interesting. The problem is already fixed in
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Kris,
Here is the lock profiling results, see the attachment.
Please, let me know if you want ssh access to this machine?
Thanks, this is very interesting. The problem is already fixed in 8.0
but we were not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I can't see the patch?
Best Regards
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Kris,
Here is the lock profiling results, see the attachment.
Please, let me know if you want ssh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kip Macy wrote:
Are you sure that the settitle call is disabled on FreeBSD?
I don't know anything about this. Could you explain?
On 12/20/07, Krassimir Slavchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have read all related threads about
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP DL380G5 using sysbench.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Claus Guttesen wrote:
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP DL380G5 using sysbench.
The results are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Krassimir Slavchev wrote:
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP DL380G5 using sysbench.
Are you sure that the settitle call is disabled on FreeBSD?
On 12/20/07, Krassimir Slavchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to
I have read all related threads about performance problems with multi
core systems but still have no idea what to do to make thinks better.
Below are results of testing postgresql on HP DL380G5 using sysbench.
The results are comparable to:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:35:52 +0100
Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What postgres-version did you use for this benchmark? Eventhough this
is a synthetic benchmark the difference in performance may indicate
some penalties on 8-core servers on FreeBSD.
According to
Just an interesting thing to note ...
Danial Thom is accusing the FreeBSD team of lying and
being dishonest. He's saying that FreeBSD is going to
die and DragonFly BSD will take its place in one year,
and that Matt Dillon had more IQ than the whole FreeBSD
team together.
Not very long ago, the
Quoting Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:00:54 +0100):
On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He might have got further by volunteering to create and supply profiles
for those specific workloads that were faster in 4.x than 6.x on UP
machinery etc... i.e. help
On 16/10/06, Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he
--- Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400,
Michael Butler wrote:
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free
to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then
he can tell all the people
If you see/grep Danial Thom in FreeBSD related, consider this:
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q1/13785.8.html
http://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
My personal fav' is the first link...
How do we know that 'DT' even exists? Hmmm.
DT - S, go
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do I need to start a project? Matt Dillon is
already doing it.
One thing that Matt has proved is that IQ isn't
cumulative. Because hes doing on his own what an
entire team of FreeBSD engineers can't do. But
Hi Kip,
Where you a troll when you outlined how your port
of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was
virtually unusable? Stating facts is not
trolling. The fact that you may not want to hear
it is your own problem. I'm fairly certain that
you know that every single thing I'm saying is
true,
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
Hi Kip,
Where you a troll when you outlined how your port
of FreeBSD 6 to Solaris was so bad that it was
virtually unusable? Stating facts is not
trolling.
And you crossposted this to performance...why?
Kip might be right, you
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
The fact that you may not want to hear it is your own problem [...]
You can't keep promoting this junk they're putting out. You can't just
keep kicking the Matt Dillons out of the camp
--- Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
The fact that you may not want to hear it is
your own problem [...]
You can't keep promoting this junk they're
putting out. You
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danial Thom wrote:
There isn't one person on that team that knows how to fix what's
wrong ..
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Danial Thom wrote:
--- Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:57:32AM -0700,
Danial Thom wrote:
Stating facts is not trolling.
true, but ...
The fact that you may not want to hear it is
your own problem [...]
You can't keep promoting this junk they're
putting
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he can tell all the people
that volunteer to work on _his_ project exactly what
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
For everyone's benefit then, please feel free to submit your patches
along with your technical analysis.
I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then he can tell all the people
that volunteer to work on
--- Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Quoting Dan Lukes [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 12
Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The main problem is - 6.x is still not
competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported
On Thu 12 Oct 07:19, Danial Thom wrote:
[...]
Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
to come out of its world of delusion and come to
terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
knows: In how ever many years of development,
there is still no good reason to use anything
other
Danial Thom wrote:
The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
ever being any good at MP. Come to terms with it,
PLEASE, because it is the case
On 10/12/06, Dan Lukes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
The right thing to do is to port the SATA support
and new NIC support back to 4.x and support both.
4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system and
FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away from
ever being any good at MP.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe its just time for the entire FreeBSD team
to come out of its world of delusion and come to
terms with what every real-life user of FreeBSD
knows: In how ever many years of development,
there is still no good
Please do not feed the trolls.
-Kip
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Quoting Dan Lukes [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 12
Oct 2006 09:43:20 +0200):
[moved from security@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The
--- Dan Lukes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danial Thom wrote:
The right thing to do is to port the SATA
support
and new NIC support back to 4.x and support
both.
4.x is far superior on a Uniprocessor system
and
FreeBSD-5+ may be an entire re-write away
from
ever being any good at MP.
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800
Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
nate Thank you for tracking this down. It is interesting that BIF is
nate heavyweight while BST is not. I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs
nate which only test on Windows and so not
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:24:16 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ok, there is new development. I realized by playing with
debug.acpi.disabled=smbat, debug.acpi.disabled=smbat cmbat and
debug.acpi.disabled=cmbat, that my laptop battery is not a smbat,
but a cmbat. When I
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:24:16 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ok, there is new development. I realized by playing with
debug.acpi.disabled=smbat, debug.acpi.disabled=smbat cmbat and
debug.acpi.disabled=cmbat, that my laptop
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:24:16 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ok, there is new development. I realized by playing with
debug.acpi.disabled=smbat, debug.acpi.disabled=smbat cmbat and
debug.acpi.disabled=cmbat, that my laptop battery is not a smbat,
Hi,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800
Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
nate Thank you for tracking this down. It is interesting that BIF is
nate heavyweight while BST is not. I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs
nate which only test on Windows and so not everyone makes BIF simple.
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800
Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
nate Thank you for tracking this down. It is interesting that BIF is
nate heavyweight while BST is not. I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs
nate which only test on
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The performance of my
pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I remove the xfce4-battery-plugin.
pldrouin acpiconf -i loop
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:37:25 -0800
Nate Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The cmbat has similar issue on some laptops. So, acpi_cmbat.c uses
cache for retrieval to reduce its influence, and its expiration
time is set by hw.acpi.battery.info_expire.
However, acpi_smbat.c doesn't use
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Nate Lawson wrote:
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The
performance of my pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I
Nate Lawson wrote:
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The
performance of my pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I remove
the
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The performance of my
pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I remove the xfce4-battery-plugin.
pldrouin acpiconf -i loop reproduces the problem for me too.
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The performance of my
pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I remove the xfce4-battery-plugin.
pldrouin acpiconf
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The
performance of my pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I remove the
xfce4-battery-plugin. pldrouin acpiconf
Nate Lawson wrote:
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0500
Pierre-Luc Drouin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pldrouin Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The
performance of my pldrouin laptop is back to normal when I remove
the
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Last friday I did a cvsup
src/buildworld/buildkernel/installkernel/installworld/mergemaster
on my laptop from 6.0-RELEASE to 6.0-STABLE and since the performance of my
laptop (Dell
Precision M70 with a Pentium M 2GHz) is not good. It behaves like if the bus
was
Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Last friday I did a cvsup src/buildworld/buildkernel/installkernel/installworld/mergemaster
on my laptop from 6.0-RELEASE to 6.0-STABLE and since the performance of my laptop (Dell
Precision M70 with a Pentium M 2GHz) is not good. It behaves
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:40:36PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The performance of my
laptop is back to normal when I remove the xfce4-battery-plugin.
acpiconf -i loop reproduces the problem for me too. So it looks like
there is something
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:40:36PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Yep, smart battery is definately the problem. The performance of my
laptop is back to normal when I remove the xfce4-battery-plugin.
acpiconf -i loop reproduces the problem for me too. So it looks like
Hi.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:40:53PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
I wanted also to add that my mouse pointer hangs on X since the upgrade.
So the computer behaves as if it was under heavy load even if the CPU
usage is almost 0%
cpufreq/powerd? Did you check, your laptop runs at
Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:40:53PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
I wanted also to add that my mouse pointer hangs on X since the upgrade.
So the computer behaves as if it was under heavy load even if the CPU
usage is almost 0%
cpufreq/powerd? Did
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:35:23PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:40:53PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
I wanted also to add that my mouse pointer hangs on X since the upgrade.
So the computer behaves as if it was under
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 02:35:23PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:40:53PM -0500, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote:
I wanted also to add that my mouse pointer hangs on X since the upgrade.
So the
I wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/flushbuf.diff
Does it work for you on 5.4?
The patch seems to work. Cool, that makes a difference like between
BTW., is that change being included in 5-STABLE or just for 6-CURRENT?
mkb.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 09:52:13PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
I wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/flushbuf.diff
Does it work for you on 5.4?
The patch seems to work. Cool, that makes a difference like between
BTW., is that change being included in
- Original Message -
From: Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff said he'll merge it in a week or two after it's been well-tested.
Been running it here on our ftp which was getting major issues with
disk access spiking system usage to 90+% making the server totally
unresponsive for 5 -
Steven Hartland wrote:
With the patch things are MUCH better. No problems to report and
the server is under major load including some heavy disk access as
Yeah, no problems here either, so far.
mkb.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 02:15:54AM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
Others don't see this though, and in other cases it was *definitively
proven* to be caused by the issue I mentioned. I'll have to think
more about what to try next..thanks for running the tests.
Perhaps it's something
Kris Kennaway wrote:
http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/flushbuf.diff
Does it work for you on 5.4?
The patch seems to work. Cool, that makes a difference like between
night and day. I can't determine any observable effect of untarring the
firefox source anymore to interactive response time
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
