panic in em, net, uma

FreeBSD vmware guest 8.1-RELEASE i386 PAE with open-vm-tools-nox11-313025_1 installed. Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode cpuid = 0; apic id = 00 fault virtual address = 0xc9aaea44 fault code = supervisor read, page not present instruction pointer = 0x20:0xc080d29a

Re: memory leak and swapfile

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:12:59PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Jack Raats j...@jarasoft.net Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:17:05 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org It looks like that there may be a memory leak of my swap space with one of the processes that is running.

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

TB --- 2010-11-27 11:30:11 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-legacy.sentex.ca TB --- 2010-11-27 11:30:11 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for amd64/amd64 TB --- 2010-11-27 11:30:11 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2010-11-27 11:30:38 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2010-11-27 11:30:38 -

ZFS raidz recovery

Hi all, I'm trying to simulate a disk fail and replacement in a raidz array and failing myself. What'm I doing wrong? Here's a transcript with interspersed commentary: r...@file:~# zpool status pool: raid state: ONLINE scrub: scrub completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Sat Nov 27 13:20:06

Re: memory leak and swapfile

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:12:59PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Jack Raats j...@jarasoft.net Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:17:05 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org It looks like that there may be a memory leak of my

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

TB --- 2010-11-27 12:53:14 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-legacy.sentex.ca TB --- 2010-11-27 12:53:14 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2010-11-27 12:53:14 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2010-11-27 12:53:32 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2010-11-27 12:53:32 -

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

TB --- 2010-11-27 13:28:34 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-legacy.sentex.ca TB --- 2010-11-27 13:28:34 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2010-11-27 13:28:34 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2010-11-27 13:28:49 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2010-11-27 13:28:49 -

Re: memory leak and swapfile

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 01:13:37AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:12:59PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Jack Raats j...@jarasoft.net Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:17:05 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org

Re: ZFS raidz recovery

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 03:22:49PM +0200, Gareth de Vaux wrote: Hi all, I'm trying to simulate a disk fail and replacement in a raidz array and failing myself. What'm I doing wrong? Here's a transcript with interspersed commentary: r...@file:~# zpool status pool: raid state: ONLINE

Re: [releng_7 tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 01:28:34PM +, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote: cc -c -O2 -frename-registers -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -std=c99 -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual -Wundef -Wno-pointer-sign

Re: ZFS raidz recovery

On Sat 2010-11-27 (07:30), Jeremy Chadwick wrote: uname -a please -- it matters greatly. $ uname -a FreeBSD file 8.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE #0: Wed Nov 24 07:56:04 SAST 2010 r...@file:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/COWNEL amd64 ___

Re: memory leak and swapfile

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 04:17:43 -0800 From: Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 07:12:59PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Jack Raats j...@jarasoft.net Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:17:05 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org It looks like

Broadcom watchdog timeout with 7.4-PRERELEASE

I've been running 7.X on a Tyan S4881 (4 dual-core Opteron CPUs) since nearly the beginning of the 7.X cycle, and have just started to see watchdog timeouts on the Broadcom bge0 GigE port. This occurs with a kernel and world compiled on 11/22, and also with a kernel compiled on 11/11 with the

ipfw oddity/bug? ipv6 != protocol 41

Hi all, I've found something that I think is a bug in ipfw. At the very least, it contradicts the man page and a number of web sites. It's also different behaviour from a few months ago. I have a IPV6 tunnel connection to Hurricane Electric that I use every now and then. When I want to use it, I

idprio processes slowing down system

Since scheduler issues have been popular lately, I thought I'd investigate a ULE issue I've been aware of for a while... I normally have some boinc (ports/astro/boinc) applications running and I'd noticed that my nightly builds appear to end much sooner when there's no boinc work units (this has