Hi,
On 13 Aug 2010, at 04:33, William D. Colburn (Schlake) wrote:
A rehash of the problem:
If my computer was plugged into the UPS and sitting on my metal desk
the drive controllers would fail and cause a panic almost immediately
when booted. If my computer was plugged into wall power and
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:37:53 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:37:53 - starting RELENG_8_0 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:37:53 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:38:12 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:38:12 -
Hi!
I'm not sure if the problem was solved, so...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:14 +0800 Alex V. Petrov wrote:
smartctl -a /dev/ad8
Device Model: WDC WD10EADS-00M2B0
Firmware Version: 01.00A01
193 Load_Cycle_Count0x0032 184 184 000Old_age Always
- 49237
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Bob Bishop r...@gid.co.uk wrote:
Is your metal desk earthed?
No, but the computer has been sitting on it since 2004 with remarkable
uptime. The UPS does appear to be really dead (it beeps now, and has
a red light), but that didn't fix all of the problems.
--
Hi,
I have a problem with my ZFS storage: some application filled a
certain directory in /var completely up with data and the server runs
a script which takes a snapshot every night. So, ~650 GB of the
available 700 GB were filled up.
Then I destroyed the last two snapshots (each referencing
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:51:24PM +0200, Andreas Mayer wrote:
I have a problem with my ZFS storage: some application filled a
certain directory in /var completely up with data and the server runs
a script which takes a snapshot every night. So, ~650 GB of the
available 700 GB were filled up.
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see variations of up to 22% in identical operations. This is not a
degradation as the performance moves up and down.
This is a very simplistic case. I have two
$ uname -a
FreeBSD wurd.dev001.net 8.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE #0: Mon Jul 19
02:36:49 UTC 2010
r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
2010/8/13 Malcolm Waltz mwa...@pacific.edu:
Have you tried zfs list -t all ?
I have, it produces this output:
$ zfs list -t all
NAME
On 08/13/2010 20:02, Andreas Mayer wrote:
$ uname -a
FreeBSD wurd.dev001.net 8.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE #0: Mon Jul 19
02:36:49 UTC 2010
r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
2010/8/13 Malcolm Waltz mwa...@pacific.edu:
Have you tried zfs list -t all ?
I
Am 13.08.2010 um 18:01 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
Note the dramatic differences even on the same kernel. For the December
6 kernel, for example, I see a maximum of 23,676,086 and a minimum of
just 18,304,565.
Are the disks still OK? If any sectors have been remapped between runs,
Hello.
I recently updated the central file server/router systems for a pair of
research clusters from RELENG_8_0 to RELENG_8_1. After following the
proper procedures, the network throughput when pulling files from both
machines via mxge0 is 200KB/s or less. Before the update, 50MB/s was
From: Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:23:08 +0200
Am 13.08.2010 um 18:01 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
Note the dramatic differences even on the same kernel. For the December
6 kernel, for example, I see a maximum of 23,676,086 and a minimum of
just 18,304,565.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see variations of up to 22% in identical operations. This is not a
degradation as the
In the meanwhile, some Web applications (they don't even access /var
but only /srv) don't work anymore because of very strange file not
accessible and file not found errors although I haven't changed
anything and the file system isn't full or something like that. I
think the whole pool or serveral
Since installing 8.1-RC2 and now on up-to-date RELENG_8 I am frequently
getting kern.crit messages like
ts_to_ct(1281661818.743348859) = [2010-08-13 01:10:18]
and have been unable so far to determine their origin or purpose. I saw
no such messages while running 7.x or earlier releases.
AFAICT
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:16:01PM -0400, Andrew J. Caines wrote:
Since installing 8.1-RC2 and now on up-to-date RELENG_8 I am frequently
getting kern.crit messages like
ts_to_ct(1281661818.743348859) = [2010-08-13 01:10:18]
and have been unable so far to determine their origin or purpose.
Jeremy,
Thanks for the quick response.
The source/responsible code for the printing is in function
clock_ts_to_ct() in: src/sys/kern/subr_clock.c
I took a look at the code in an attempt to divine the reason for the
frequent messages, without success.
Any idea why I see so many? I'm not
On Friday 13 August 2010 06:50 pm, Andrew J. Caines wrote:
Jeremy,
Thanks for the quick response.
The source/responsible code for the printing is in function
clock_ts_to_ct() in: src/sys/kern/subr_clock.c
I took a look at the code in an attempt to divine the reason for
the frequent
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see variations of up to 22% in identical operations. This is not a
degradation as the
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:32:05PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see variations of up to 22% in
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:36:12PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
Both figures seem quite low to me? I cannot exactly reproduce your test,
because I don't have an empty second disk handy, but doing
dd if=/dev/zero bs=1m count=100 of=/tmp/foo
With a total write size of 100MB,
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:32:05 +0200
From: Roland Smith rsm...@xs4all.nl
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see variations
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:29:54 -0700
From: Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see
Maybe there is a hardware component here? Are both disks on the same
controller? Or if not are both controllers using the same interrupt line?
No. Each is on its one controller and is the only disk on that
controller.
You should have a look at 'systat -vmstat' with dd running in the
The deviation in your disk I/O isn't a major surprise (to me anyway),
given the system specs. What *does* surprise me is your abysmal I/O
speeds in general. 18MB/sec min, 24MB/sec max?! ICH6-M can do a lot
more than that. Something isn't right.
it's possible that the hw is...suboptimal.
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:06:58 +0800
From: TJ Varghese t...@tjvarghese.com
Maybe there is a hardware component here? Are both disks on the same
controller? Or if not are both controllers using the same interrupt line?
No. Each is on its one controller and is the only disk on
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:36:12PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:32:05PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:33:57 +0800
From: TJ Varghese t...@tjvarghese.com
The deviation in your disk I/O isn't a major surprise (to me anyway),
given the system specs. What *does* surprise me is your abysmal I/O
speeds in general. 18MB/sec min, 24MB/sec max?! ICH6-M can do a lot
28 matches
Mail list logo
