On 3/1/2013 10:06 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:34 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes:
Are you sure this was due to the OpenSSH update, and not the OpenSSL
update a few days ago? Can you try to roll back to
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:34:39 +0100, Daniel Eischen deisc...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Ben Morrow wrote:
Quoth Daniel Eischen deisc...@freebsd.org:
Yes, we still use a couple of DLT autoloaders and have nightly
incrementals and weekly fulls. This is the problem I have with
Hi!
Im trying to limit memory usage for jails with the rctl API. But I don't really
get it.
I have compiled the kernel with the right options and rctl show me stuff like:
jail:jail22:memoryuse:deny=268435456
jail:jail22:swapuse:deny=268435456
jail:jail20:memoryuse:deny=268435456
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:55:22 +0100, Volodymyr Kostyrko c.kw...@gmail.com
wrote:
01.03.2013 16:24, Karl Denninger:
Dabbling with ZFS now, and giving some thought to how to handle backup
strategies.
ZFS' snapshot capabilities have forced me to re-think the way that I've
handled this.
Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net writes:
This PR looks to be related
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2012-September/050139.html
That suggests a bug in the aesni driver...
Can you ktrace sshd in both cases? My guess is the difference is that
the new version uses hw offloading while
On 3/2/2013 10:33 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net writes:
This PR looks to be related
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2012-September/050139.html
That suggests a bug in the aesni driver...
OK, but the above uses the glxsb driver, not the aesni
Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net writes:
The pcaps and basic wireshark output at
http://tancsa.com/openssh/
This is 6.1 with aesni vs 6.1 without aesni; what I wanted was 6.1 vs
5.8, both with aesni loaded.
Could you also ktrace the server in both cases?
An easy workaround is to change the list
On 3/2/2013 11:02 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net writes:
The pcaps and basic wireshark output at
http://tancsa.com/openssh/
This is 6.1 with aesni vs 6.1 without aesni; what I wanted was 6.1 vs
5.8, both with aesni loaded.
Ahh, ok. I will do it later this aft.
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no writes:
This is 6.1 with aesni vs 6.1 without aesni; what I wanted was 6.1 vs
5.8, both with aesni loaded.
On second thought, I don't need more pcaps.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
Wiadomość napisana przez Peter Ankerstål w dniu 2 mar 2013, o godz. 16:21:
Hi!
Im trying to limit memory usage for jails with the rctl API. But I don't
really get it.
I have compiled the kernel with the right options and rctl show me stuff like:
jail:jail22:memoryuse:deny=268435456
On Mar 2, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierała tr...@freebsd.org wrote:
[..]
Could you please do jls jid name and verify that a jail named jail20 is
actually
running?
--
If you cut off my head, what would I say? Me and my head, or me and my body?
Oh!
My bad, I thought
On Sat, 2013-03-02 at 17:02 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net writes:
The pcaps and basic wireshark output at
http://tancsa.com/openssh/
This is 6.1 with aesni vs 6.1 without aesni; what I wanted was 6.1 vs
5.8, both with aesni loaded.
Could you also
Wiadomość napisana przez Peter Ankerstål w dniu 2 mar 2013, o godz. 17:18:
On Mar 2, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierała tr...@freebsd.org wrote:
[..]
Could you please do jls jid name and verify that a jail named jail20 is
actually
running?
--
If you cut off my head, what
On Mar 1, 2013, at 21:14, Ben Morrow wrote:
But since ZFS doesn't support POSIX.1e ACLs that's not terribly
useful... I don't believe bsdtar/libarchive supports NFSv4 ACLs yet.
Ah yes, just noticed that. Thought it did.
https://github.com/libarchive/libarchive/wiki/TarNFS4ACLs
On 2013-Mar-01 08:24:53 -0600, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
If I then restore the base and snapshot, I get back to where I was when
the latest snapshot was taken. I don't need to keep the incremental
snapshot for longer than it takes to zfs send it, so I can do:
zfs snapshot
On 3/2/2013 4:14 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2013-Mar-01 08:24:53 -0600, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
If I then restore the base and snapshot, I get back to where I was when
the latest snapshot was taken. I don't need to keep the incremental
snapshot for longer than it takes to
- Original Message -
From: Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net
Reality however is that the on-disk format of most database files is
EXTREMELY compressible (often WELL better than 2:1), so I sacrifice
there. I think the better option is to stuff a user parameter into the
filesystem
The recommended approach is to do zfs send | zfs recv and store a
replica of your pool (with whatever level of RAID that meets your
needs). This way, you immediately detect an error in the send stream
and can repeat the send. You then use scrub to verify (and recover)
the replica.
I do zfs send
Quoth Ben Morrow:
I don't know what medium you're backing up to (does anyone use tape any
more?) but when backing up to disk I much prefer to keep the backup in
the form of a filesystem rather than as 'zfs send' streams. One reason
for this is that I believe that new versions of the ZFS code
Quoth Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net:
Quoth Ben Morrow:
I don't know what medium you're backing up to (does anyone use tape any
more?) but when backing up to disk I much prefer to keep the backup in
the form of a filesystem rather than as 'zfs send' streams. One reason
for this is that
On 3/2/2013 10:23 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
Quoth Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net:
Quoth Ben Morrow:
I don't know what medium you're backing up to (does anyone use tape any
more?) but when backing up to disk I much prefer to keep the backup in
the form of a filesystem rather than as 'zfs send'
Karl Denninger (karl) writes:
I think I'm going to play with this and see what I think of it. One
thing that is very attractive to this design is to have the receiving
side be a mirror, then to rotate to the vault copy run a scrub (to
insure that both members are consistent at a checksum
Quoth Phil Regnauld regna...@x0.dk:
The only risk that makes me uncomfortable doing this is that the pool is
always active when the system is running. With UFS backup disks it's
not -- except when being actually written to they're unmounted, and this
materially decreases the risk of an
23 matches
Mail list logo
