Re: suspiciously terrible performance of 2.5.1 beta on OpenBSD/amd64 (now a crash...)

2006-08-21 Thread Jean-Louis Martineau
David, Could you try the attached patch? It should fix the driver crash. Jean-Louis David Golden wrote: On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:18, David Golden wrote: so switched nearly-2.5.1 to vanilla bsd with holding disk in order to try another test with nearly-2.5.1 to try to eliminate that

Re: suspiciously terrible performance of 2.5.1 beta on OpenBSD/amd64 (now a crash...)

2006-08-21 Thread David Golden
On Monday 21 August 2006 13:42, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote: David, Could you try the attached patch? It should fix the driver crash. Thanks! Think it has indeed fixed it: Have only managed to test one combo (still got the performance+indexing issue, of course), but a run with DLEs 2/2 ::

Re: suspiciously terrible performance of 2.5.1 beta on OpenBSD/amd64 (now a crash...)

2006-08-04 Thread David Golden
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:18, David Golden wrote: so switched nearly-2.5.1 to vanilla bsd with holding disk in order to try another test with nearly-2.5.1 to try to eliminate that as the issue... but I can't! Bigger Problems: Amanda driver process just upped and dumped core - guess I got

Re: suspiciously terrible performance of 2.5.1 beta on OpenBSD/amd64 (now a crash...)

2006-08-03 Thread David Golden
On 2006-08-02 10:31:43 -0700, Paddy Sreenivasan wrote: Can you please clarify what you mean by nearly-2.5.1. Is it 2.5.1b2 or 2.5.1b1? There are lots of memory issues fixed using valgrind and other tools in 2.5.1b2 release. 2.5.1b2 (and CVS HEAD from yesterday morning) exhibit the problem

Re: suspiciously terrible performance of 2.5.1 beta on OpenBSD/amd64 (now a crash...)

2006-08-02 Thread Paddy Sreenivasan
On 8/2/06, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-08-01 13:00:05 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote: Not certain from your note, is this a first installation and you are getting poor performance or are you comparing your results to those obtained before upgrading to the bleeding edge. Sorry,