TB --- 2012-04-19 03:52:55 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 03:52:55 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 05:06:48 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 05:06:48 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 04:25:11 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 04:25:11 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 07:30:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 07:30:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 07:30:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 07:30:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 07:30:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 07:30:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 09:47:03 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 09:47:03 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:56:02PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
Hi,
I have patches for the mountd, rpc.statd and rpc.lockd daemons
that are meant to keep them from failing when a dynamically
selected port# is not available for some combination of
udp,tcp X ipv4,ipv6
If anyone would like
TB --- 2012-04-19 10:33:40 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 10:33:40 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
using the netsend program in tools/tools/netrate/netsend
and instrumenting the source code and the kernel do return in
various points of the path. Here are some results which
I hope you find interesting.
Test conditions:
- intel i7-870
TB --- 2012-04-19 11:49:37 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 11:49:37 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 11:06:19 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 11:06:19 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 14:10:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 14:10:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 14:10:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 14:10:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 14:10:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 14:10:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 16:26:07 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 16:26:07 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 03:30:18PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
using the netsend program in tools/tools/netrate/netsend
and instrumenting the source code and the kernel do return in
various points of the path. Here are some results
TB --- 2012-04-19 17:13:11 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 17:13:11 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 18:26:13 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 18:26:13 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
On 19.04.2012 15:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
using the netsend program in tools/tools/netrate/netsend
and instrumenting the source code and the kernel do return in
various points of the path. Here are some results which
I hope you find
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05:37PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 19.04.2012 15:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
using the netsend program in tools/tools/netrate/netsend
and instrumenting the source code and the kernel do return in
various
This is indeed a big problem. I'm working (rough edges remain) on
changing the routing table locking to an rmlock (read-mostly) which
This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry.
Otherwise you still convoy on the lock for the rtentry itself to
increment and decrement the
TB --- 2012-04-19 17:45:35 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 17:45:35 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:34:45PM +0200, K. Macy wrote:
This is indeed a big problem. ?I'm working (rough edges remain) on
changing the routing table locking to an rmlock (read-mostly) which
This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry.
Otherwise you still convoy on the
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:34:45PM +0200, K. Macy wrote:
This is indeed a big problem. ?I'm working (rough edges remain) on
changing the routing table locking to an rmlock (read-mostly) which
This only helps if your
On 19.04.2012 22:34, K. Macy wrote:
This is indeed a big problem. I'm working (rough edges remain) on
changing the routing table locking to an rmlock (read-mostly) which
This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry.
Otherwise you still convoy on the lock for the rtentry
This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry.
Otherwise you still convoy on the lock for the rtentry itself to
increment and decrement the rtentry's reference count.
The rtentry lock isn't obtained anymore. While the rmlock read
lock is held on the rtable the relevant
On 19.04.2012 22:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:05:37PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 19.04.2012 15:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I have been running some performance tests on UDP sockets,
using the netsend program in tools/tools/netrate/netsend
and instrumenting the source code
On 19.04.2012 23:17, K. Macy wrote:
This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry.
Otherwise you still convoy on the lock for the rtentry itself to
increment and decrement the rtentry's reference count.
The rtentry lock isn't obtained anymore. While the rmlock read
lock is
Yes, but the lookup requires a lock? Or is every entry replicated
to every CPU? So a number of concurrent CPU's sending to the same
UDP destination would content on that lock?
No. In the default case it's per CPU, thus no serialization is
required. But yes, if your transmitting thread
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Andre Oppermann an...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19.04.2012 23:17, K. Macy wrote:
This only helps if your flows aren't hitting the same rtentry.
Otherwise you still convoy on the lock for the rtentry itself to
increment and decrement the rtentry's reference count.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 19.04.2012 22:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
What might be moderately expensive are the critical_enter()/critical_exit()
calls around individual allocations.
Can't get away from those as a thread must not migrate away
when
On 20.04.2012 00:03, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:20:00PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 19.04.2012 22:46, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
The allocation happens while the code has already an exclusive
lock on so-snd_buf so a pool of fresh buffers could be attached
there.
Ah, there it
TB --- 2012-04-19 20:50:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 20:50:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-19 20:50:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 20:50:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
Hi,
there are so many different news about the X220 here that it is not so clear to
me whether an install will result in a usable system.
If everything works fine, there should be one for me tomorrow ready to get
FreeBSD. My plan is to start with a plain 9.0 installation and upgrade it then
TB --- 2012-04-19 20:50:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 20:50:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
On 04/19/12 17:01, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
there are so many different news about the X220 here that it is not so clear to
me whether an install will result in a usable system.
If everything works fine, there should be one for me tomorrow ready to get
FreeBSD. My plan is to start with a
Andrey Simonenko wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:56:02PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
Hi,
I have patches for the mountd, rpc.statd and rpc.lockd daemons
that are meant to keep them from failing when a dynamically
selected port# is not available for some combination of
udp,tcp X
laptop:root[227] uname -a
FreeBSD laptop 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r230975M: Sat Feb 4
09:03:27 PST 2012 root@laptop:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MOBILE i386
laptop:root[224] config MOBILE
Kernel build directory is ../compile/MOBILE
Don't forget to do ``make cleandepend make depend''
TB --- 2012-04-19 23:07:55 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 23:07:55 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
Hi,
thanks for the answer.
More inside the e-mail.
On Friday 20 April 2012 07:31:51 matt wrote:
On 04/19/12 17:01, Erich Dollansky wrote:
there are so many different news about the X220 here that it is not so
clear to me whether an install will result in a usable system.
That's
TB --- 2012-04-19 23:53:19 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-19 23:53:19 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
TB --- 2012-04-20 01:08:45 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-20 01:08:45 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the answer.
More inside the e-mail.
On Friday 20 April 2012 07:31:51 matt wrote:
On 04/19/12 17:01, Erich Dollansky wrote:
there are so many different news about the X220 here that it is
TB --- 2012-04-20 00:26:09 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-20 00:26:09 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB ---
Hi,
On Friday 20 April 2012 10:17:55 Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
Minor note. Sound card seems to work OK through the speakers, but I
have failed to find the magic to make the headphone jack work. I have
not tried
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 20 April 2012 10:17:55 Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Erich Dollansky
erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com wrote:
Minor note. Sound card seems to work OK through the speakers,
48 matches
Mail list logo