Re: this 48-core box...
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:53:36 -0700 Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: .. just as a data point - there was a thread a while ago about numeric processing performance on linux vs bsd. It all boiled down to how jemalloc versus the linux allocator(s) allocate blocks. jemalloc will page align things after a certain size. Linux didn't. So when doing numeric processing, there was a lot of cache aliasing going on leading to inefficient cache usage and redundant memory operations. When the same workload on Linux was run on FreeBSD but with the Linux library/allocators, the performance was identical. No-one followed through. I think I may have to write a blog post about it. There's no MALLOC_OPTIONS flag to set/unset this, but adding a new flag to disable a feature is easier (or should be) than implementing new one. The only problem I see to this is if the cache align happens at sbrk/mmap level. -adrian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org --- --- Eduardo Morras emorr...@yahoo.es ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
dangerously dedicated physical disks.
Hi there!! During the reading of the FreeBSD handbook, I've encountered at the term 'dangerously dedicated' regarding physical disks and the author of this chapter in the FreeBSD handbook didn't think this term need more clarity. so for newbies like me in the FreeBSD world I want to ask: what's the 'dangerously dedicated' term meaning by? Thanks in advance! atar. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: dangerously dedicated physical disks.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:16:17 - atar atar.yo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there!! During the reading of the FreeBSD handbook, I've encountered at the term 'dangerously dedicated' regarding physical disks and the author of this chapter in the FreeBSD handbook didn't think this term need more clarity. so for newbies like me in the FreeBSD world I want to ask: what's the 'dangerously dedicated' term meaning by? Thanks in advance! atar. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Information is at this (very old) link. Not as scary as it sounds. http://docs.freebsd.org/doc/2.2.6-RELEASE/usr/share/doc/FAQ/FAQ103.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Freebsd support in Adelaide wanted
Hi Greg questions@ etc That's massively out of date. Mike left Adelaide in 1998, and has been working for Apple in Cupertino for about 10 years. OK deleted. Greg Lehey in Echunga +61 8 83888286 That's out of date too. I left Adelaide over 6 years ago. Up-to-date information at http://www.lemis.com/grog/ . OK Updated. Both are well know in FreeBSD community :-) I've cc'd them both Thanks. Danny did in fact contact me directly, and I think we've found somebody for him. Good :-) PS for other consultants: If you want to be added to geographic indexed table just email me a pre-prepared HTML table enty See: http://www.berklix.com/consultants/ It would certainly be a good idea for more eyes to go through this list and help you get it up to date. Updates welcome, preferably in format diff -c Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, like a play script. Indent old text with . Send plain text. No quoted-printable, HTML, base64, multipart/alternative. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: dangerously dedicated physical disks.
Thanks. it helps a little to clarify this term. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: dangerously dedicated physical disks.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013, atar wrote: During the reading of the FreeBSD handbook, I've encountered at the term 'dangerously dedicated' regarding physical disks and the author of this chapter in the FreeBSD handbook didn't think this term need more clarity. so for newbies like me in the FreeBSD world I want to ask: what's the 'dangerously dedicated' term meaning by? The term refers to a disk partitioned with only the BSD disklabel partition table: disk ada0 partition a (ada0a, /) partition b (ada0b, swap) partition d (ada0d, /var) partition e (ada0e, /tmp) partition f (ada0f, /usr) It's dangerous because that partitioning format is rare outside of BSD-based systems. Disk utilities may not recognize it, and could damage it. Most of the rest of the world used MBR partitioning, which allowed up to four MBR partitions (called slices by FreeBSD) per disk. Since four slices is not enough for the standard FreeBSD disk layout, with /, swap, /var, /tmp, and /usr, the standard procedure is to use MBR partitioning, with the MBR partitions (slices) being sub-partitioned by a BSD disklabel. disk ada0 MBR slice 1 (ada0s1) partition a (ada0s1a, /) partition b (ada0s1b, swap) partition d (ada0s1d, /var) partition e (ada0s1e, /tmp) partition f (ada0s1f, /usr) MBR slice 2 (ada0s2) ... Yes, one partition format inside another. It only seems complicated because it is. GPT is the new partitioning format, which makes things much simpler by being capable of up to 128 partitions in the standard configuration. With GPT, there is no reason to use BSD disklabels at all. disk ada0 GPT partition 1 (ada0p1, bootcode) GPT partition 2 (ada0p2, /) GPT partition 3 (ada0p3, swap) GPT partition 4 (ada0p4, /var) GPT partition 5 (ada0p5, /tmp) GPT partition 6 (ada0p6, /usr) Summary: Dangerously dedicated partitioning has no unique advantages. Use GPT when possible, use MBR/disklabel when necessary. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: dangerously dedicated physical disks.
Thank you very much about your efforts to explain me in detailed the 'dangerous dedicated' term. Regards, atar. Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote: On Sun, 22 Sep 2013, atar wrote: During the reading of the FreeBSD handbook, I've encountered at the term 'dangerously dedicated' regarding physical disks and the author of this chapter in the FreeBSD handbook didn't think this term need more clarity. so for newbies like me in the FreeBSD world I want to ask: what's the 'dangerously dedicated' term meaning by? The term refers to a disk partitioned with only the BSD disklabel partition table: disk ada0 partition a (ada0a, /) partition b (ada0b, swap) partition d (ada0d, /var) partition e (ada0e, /tmp) partition f (ada0f, /usr) It's dangerous because that partitioning format is rare outside of BSD-based systems. Disk utilities may not recognize it, and could damage it. Most of the rest of the world used MBR partitioning, which allowed up to four MBR partitions (called slices by FreeBSD) per disk. Since four slices is not enough for the standard FreeBSD disk layout, with /, swap, /var, /tmp, and /usr, the standard procedure is to use MBR partitioning, with the MBR partitions (slices) being sub-partitioned by a BSD disklabel. disk ada0 MBR slice 1 (ada0s1) partition a (ada0s1a, /) partition b (ada0s1b, swap) partition d (ada0s1d, /var) partition e (ada0s1e, /tmp) partition f (ada0s1f, /usr) MBR slice 2 (ada0s2) ... Yes, one partition format inside another. It only seems complicated because it is. GPT is the new partitioning format, which makes things much simpler by being capable of up to 128 partitions in the standard configuration. With GPT, there is no reason to use BSD disklabels at all. disk ada0 GPT partition 1 (ada0p1, bootcode) GPT partition 2 (ada0p2, /) GPT partition 3 (ada0p3, swap) GPT partition 4 (ada0p4, /var) GPT partition 5 (ada0p5, /tmp) GPT partition 6 (ada0p6, /usr) Summary: Dangerously dedicated partitioning has no unique advantages. Use GPT when possible, use MBR/disklabel when necessary. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Unban my second address from the mailing list
Hi, A long time ago, my domain malikania.fr has been banned because of lot bounces, now the server is working and running. I sometime send some PR directly from my server using this domain, thus I would like to be unbanned (the mail wasn't sent and postfix was saying that my domain is forbidden...). Can you unban my domain please? If I don't post to the good mailing-list, just le me know. Regards, ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rctl within jail
On 22.09.2013 15:45, Fbsd8 wrote: David Demelier wrote: Hello there, I wanted to use rctl within a jail to add more fine grained setting for some users, and default ones to. But it does not seem to work. Is it supported? Do we need to add a special flag to the jail creation? # rctl -a loginclass:default:maxproc:deny=30 rctl: rctl_add_rule: Operation not permitted Regards, David The rctl command is brand new. It does not have a group of users yet, so that is why you have not received any replies to your post. As far as I know you can not issue the rctl command from within the running jail. The rctl command is issued on the HOST only. You can apply rules to an entire jail if you want to, for example; to limit the amount of memory a jail can use: # rctl -a jail:jailname:memoryuse:deny=1G (where jailname is the name of your jail). This would make sure the jail can't use more than (approximately) 1 gigabyte of memory. To enable rctl on the host, you need to compile a custom kernel that contains the following 2 parameters; options RACCT options RCTL Yes, I will also post a PR for this because no manpage is saying that you requires this on your kernel. I will provide a new manpage and a bit more documentation. I think your rctl command would look like this when issued from the host rctl -a jail:jailname:loginclass:default:maxproc:deny=30 What I really want, is to avoid users to spawn too much processes (aka fork bombs). But if I apply to the jail directly, it also apply to the services jails, which is a bit not wanted. Regards, David ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: rctl within jail
David Demelier wrote: Hello there, I wanted to use rctl within a jail to add more fine grained setting for some users, and default ones to. But it does not seem to work. Is it supported? Do we need to add a special flag to the jail creation? # rctl -a loginclass:default:maxproc:deny=30 rctl: rctl_add_rule: Operation not permitted Regards, David The rctl command is brand new. It does not have a group of users yet, so that is why you have not received any replies to your post. As far as I know you can not issue the rctl command from within the running jail. The rctl command is issued on the HOST only. You can apply rules to an entire jail if you want to, for example; to limit the amount of memory a jail can use: # rctl -a jail:jailname:memoryuse:deny=1G (where jailname is the name of your jail). This would make sure the jail can't use more than (approximately) 1 gigabyte of memory. To enable rctl on the host, you need to compile a custom kernel that contains the following 2 parameters; options RACCT options RCTL I think your rctl command would look like this when issued from the host rctl -a jail:jailname:loginclass:default:maxproc:deny=30 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Unban my second address from the mailing list
David Demelier wrote: Hi, A long time ago, my domain malikania.fr has been banned because of lot bounces, now the server is working and running. I sometime send some PR directly from my server using this domain, thus I would like to be unbanned (the mail wasn't sent and postfix was saying that my domain is forbidden...). Can you unban my domain please? If I don't post to the good mailing-list, just le me know. No, it's not correct to mail the list for this. For list specific issues: Most lists on Internet use conventions of owner-LISTNAME@ or LISTNAME-owner@ (often admins alias one to the other so both work), so if you get a bounce, mail the other) http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions also lists: moderators at freebsd.org But in this case as it's a domain issue, mail postmas...@freebsd.org Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, like a play script. Indent old text with . Send plain text. No quoted-printable, HTML, base64, multipart/alternative. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Unban my second address from the mailing list
On 22.09.2013 22:02, Julian H. Stacey wrote: David Demelier wrote: Hi, A long time ago, my domain malikania.fr has been banned because of lot bounces, now the server is working and running. I sometime send some PR directly from my server using this domain, thus I would like to be unbanned (the mail wasn't sent and postfix was saying that my domain is forbidden...). Can you unban my domain please? If I don't post to the good mailing-list, just le me know. No, it's not correct to mail the list for this. For list specific issues: Most lists on Internet use conventions of owner-LISTNAME@ or LISTNAME-owner@ (often admins alias one to the other so both work), so if you get a bounce, mail the other) http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions also lists: moderators at freebsd.org But in this case as it's a domain issue, mail postmas...@freebsd.org Cheers, Julian Okay thanks, I'll forward the original message ! Regards, ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
