Re: Updated php, and apache segfaults on SIGHUP
Could you guys google for fixphpextorder.sh and see if that would help. It did help me last year when I had this problem and I always rely on it during upgrade, but I'm not saying I guarantee it will:-) still cores # /usr/local/etc/rc.d/apache22 start Performing sanity check on apache22 configuration: Segmentation fault (core dumped) Starting apache22. Segmentation fault (core dumped) Apache (1.3) would core dump when pgsql (from php 5.2.5) was loaded as a module. Commenting this module out from /usr/local/etc/php/extensions.php solved the startup problem (but then the web-app could not connect to our postgresql-server). Compiling pgsql statically into php worked around my problem. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated php, and apache segfaults on SIGHUP
OK I've narrowed down my problem to: extension=mhash.so in extensions.ini If I comment out that php extension, I'm good. If I don't, I crash when sending HUP signal to parent apache process. I experimented with the order of the extensions.ini file but could not get to work regardless of putting that mhash in the beginning or the end of the file. On freebsd 7, I've cvsup'd and rebuilt all ports, so I know it's not an 'out of date' kind of thing. Hmm.. Try to compile it into php rather than a module. http://no.php.net/manual/en/mhash.installation.php -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bad performance of 7.0 nfs client with Solaris nfs server
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel). It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share. We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s). We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async. This is our mount: nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mnt/nest.xx.xx nfs noatime,async,-i,rw,-T,-3 Both our server (7.0 and Solaris 10) are Gigabit Ethernet, both are HP Proliant DL360 i386 (NIC bge0): I have a solaris 9 nfs-server (on sparc) with som TB on HDS attached to it with two qlogic-hba's. These partitions are shared to our webservers via nfs, according to my mrtg-graph I get approx. 8 MB/s at peak. I can probably get more but the requirement is not there. With four-way-servers and FreeBSD 6.2 I had a read- and write-size of 8192. I ended up with this size by copying to and from the nfs-server until I didn't get nfs server not responding; is alive again message. Then I upgraded to FreeBSD 7.0 in October 2007 on a new eight-way-server I started to get not responding; alive again during load. So I decreased rw-size to the current 2048. When I decreased the size I also avoided another problem (by accident :-) ). When uploading images I sometimes saw ImageMagick's convert went into an (almost) infinite loop, comsuming 100 % cpu (on one core) until killed. Reducing the rw-size eliminated this issue. fstab-entry: my.nfs.server:/archive /archive nfs rw,nfsv3,-w=2048,-r=20480 0 I'm using udp-mounts, does not appear to change performance for my part. HTH. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is a sane setting for maxdsize when running amd64? it seems many normal suggestions do not apply.
You should configure squid to use no more than about 60 - 70% of the available physical RAM-- ie, set the cache_mem parameter to about 2.5 or 3GB. Better yet, don't run Squid at all. Ok, then what do you recommend instead of Squid? Varnish. http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UFS2 optimization for many small files
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is more effective IMHO. I'd be happy if anyone can suggest what does fragment (block/8) in the ufs2 mean and how this parameter works. I know It's better to read the full ufs2 specification, but hope that someone here can give a hint. Please advice with optimizations or tricks. Thank you very much. Try zfs on amd64 unless your app doesn't work well with zfs or your organization doesn't allow current. Current is remarkably stable taking into account zfs is fairly new and ported from solaris and running on current. I'm using it on a 8.2 TB nexsan storage and no crashes during testing and a limited time in production. Some years ago I used FreeBSD (5.2) as nfs-server (using ufs2) on approx. 15 partitions ranging from 400 GB to 2 TB in size. If the server for some reason had crashed the webservers were unable to access the nfs-mounted partitions during the period the server did a snapshot of a partition, in order to perform a background-fsck and thus our website was down. So ufs2 does not scale well. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UFS2 optimization for many small files
approx. 15 partitions ranging from 400 GB to 2 TB in size. If the server for some reason had crashed the webservers were unable to the question is about the reason it crashed... access the nfs-mounted partitions during the period the server did a snapshot of a partition, in order to perform a background-fsck and thus our website was down. So ufs2 does not scale well. Reasons not related to the nfs-server itself. FreeBSD itself was rock-solid. It was firmware-related on the storage-side. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UFS2 optimization for many small files
Try zfs on amd64 unless your app doesn't work well with zfs or your does zfs have RELIABLE and USABLE software allowing to efficiently backup large filesystems to other media? (DVD's, tapes, other hard discs) Zfs has send/receive where you can do snapshots and send them to a different host. This could be your backup-host. I'm considering this solution myself where FreeBSD and zfs is my primary host and my nightly backups will be send to my solaris-host. Solaris has the required lto-3-drivers. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xorg 7.2 update
I just updated my 6.2 box to the new Xorg 7.2 distro. I followed all the directions in the UPDATING file. It appears all the directories have been properly built. I also successfully ran the mergebase.sh script from the Tools/scripts directory. However, when I try to run X, I get the following error: (EE) Failed to load module pcidata (module does not exist), 0) Fatal server error: Unable to load required base modules, Exiting I had the same error when I reused an old xorg.conf. I commented out some modules, until it worked. Don't remember which one though. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron
Cost wise, AMD Opteron 246 is roughly the same cost as a 3.0Ghz Xeon ... But how do they compare performance wise; specifically related to FreeBSD? We have a dual xeon (nocona) @ 3.2 GHz and a dual opteron @ 2 GHz, both with 4 GB RAM and running the amd64-port. My impression is that the opteron performs *slightly* better than it's Intel-cousin. regards Claus ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nfs mounts on FreeBSD 5.1
Hi. I'm trying to nfs-mount a FreeBSD 5.1 client on a Redhat 7.3 nfs-server. I have the line nfs_client_enable=YES in /etc/rc.conf and nfsclient.ko is loaded. The error I get is [udp] nfs-srv:/mount/a: RPCMNT: clnt_create: RPC: Program not registered The mount-command is mount_nfs -o port=2049 nfs-srv:/mount/a /mount/a I've tried nfs v.2 and 3 as options, but no change. The Linux-server is accepting nfs-mount-requests from other clients so the server itself is OK. Doing a tcpdump gives me: sidsel/home/claus#tcpdump udp port nfs tcpdump: listening on fxp0 11:34:11.177302 sidsel.1061287510 nfs-srv.nfs: 40 null 11:34:11.177421 nfs-srv.nfs sidsel.1061287510: reply ok 24 null (DF) The FreeBSD 5.1 client is tracking tag=RELENG_5_1 cvsup'ed 14. Aug. 2003. Only IPv4. regards Claus Yahoo! Mail (http://dk.mail.yahoo.com) - Gratis: 6 MB lagerplads, spamfilter og virusscan ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with ipfilter 3.4.29 under -STABLE (post 31/08/2002)
Hi. --- Robin Breathe [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev: Hi all, I'm interested to know if anyone is successfully running ipf/ipnat under -STABLE from after the merge on the 31st of August I have installed stable 4.6.2 and did a cvsup on sept. 8-9'th of Sept. and did a make world and make kernel on a custom-kernel without ipfilter compiled into the kernel. Loaded ipfilter as a kernel-module and it worked fine. I have found that my existing rulesets fail with the new code. ipf blocks everything, and ipnat doesn't do NAT. My rules are at http://isometry.net/freebsd/ipfilter/, and they've worked flawlessly with previous versions of ipfilter, in particular Decided to compile ipfilter into the kernel and nothing appeared to work. So I removed it again from the kernel and reverted to use ipfilter as a loadable module instead. Works with NAT but does seem to have some issues related to passive ftp from our inside network out to the internet. The connection breaks after 60 secs. I have 'pass out tcp port 21 keep state' etc. in my config-file, but that doesn't seem to work as intended. Tried to enable active ftp by adding the 'map ep0 0/0 - 0/32 proxy port 21 ftp/tcp' statement into my ipnat-config-file. But not shure whether I got it wrong or not. I am trying to work out whether the problem lies with the recent merge of ipfilter 3.4.29, or with my config. And from all the testing I've been able to do, the problem seems to lie with ipfilter. Other people's experiences with the new code would be greatly appreciated. Can't dig too much into the ftp-issue since I need to test traffic-shaping (will use IPFW for that purpose) and lots of other stuff my boss wants me to do. I'll do another make world/kernel when 4.7 has been out for a week or so to see whether ftp works or not. Cheers Claus Få den nye Yahoo! Messenger på www.yahoo.dk/messenger Nu med webkamera, talechat, interaktive baggrunde og meget mere! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
