Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating this
garbage. (Yes, I have been down
If anyone interested, I got here [1] VirtualBox Image:
FreeBSD-10-amd64-r228694-2011-12-19.vdi.xz
Anyone who's looking to test 10 can get to test it :)
It contains package-installed partial system with openbox;
Image configured to run DHCP on em0, you can change this in /etc/rc.conf,
as
On 19/12/2011 08:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Here is one problem: we have choice from three items:
(1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing FreeBSD
(2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing Phoronix
(communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare
I updated to r228700 from 228122 and dhclient exits immediately saying
that em0 doesn't exist. However ifconfig seems to disagree:
em0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500
options=4219bRXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC,VLAN_HWTSO
Hello, Adrian.
You wrote 16 декабря 2011 г., 20:43:27:
Guys/girls/fuzzy things - this is 2011; people look at shiny blog
sites with graphs rather than mailing lists. Sorry, we lost that
battle. :)
My thoughts exactly.
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org
Hi,
we support the official ways to update FreeBSD with delete-old. This means
installkernel resp. install in the kernel config directory, and freebsd-update.
I hope freebsd-update does the right thing and moves the old kernel directory
out of the way.
We do not support weird cases with
Hello, Matthew.
You wrote 19 декабря 2011 г., 13:13:09:
(1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing FreeBSD
(2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing Phoronix
(communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare
/ meaningless, ets)
(2a) Ignore Phoronix,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:09AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 19/12/2011 08:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Here is one problem: we have choice from three items:
(1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing FreeBSD
(2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by fixing Phoronix
On 12/19/11 09:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org:
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further
Hans Petter,
I think that I see some issues in the USB code that could cause problems in some
edge cases.
From easiest to hardest:
1. I think that currently there is a LOR in usb_bus_shutdown. I think that the
following patch should fix it:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote:
FreeBSD actually does _BETTER_ (subjectively) in this test than the
Linux system when you look at what is really going on. FreeBSD is
favoring writes, which is _GOOD_. FreeBSD does not need to be fixed,
the benchmarks
On 19. Dec 2011, at 09:18 , Alexander Leidinger wrote:
I think in general Alexander is right here. We usually do not allow for
atomic replacements of individual modules in /boot/kernel/ unless you know
what you are doing, in which case the ObsoleteFiles.inc doesn't seem to
be what you are
IMHO, no offence, as always.
As were told, Phoronix used default setup, not tuned.
So? Is average user will tune it after setup? No, he'll get same defaults,
and would expect same performance as in tests, and he probably get it.
The problem of FreeBSD is not it's default settings, some kind of
On 2011-12-19 10:17, Doug Barton wrote:
I updated to r228700 from 228122 and dhclient exits immediately saying
that em0 doesn't exist. However ifconfig seems to disagree:
em0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500
On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote:
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org:
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be
On 12/19/11 13:21, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On 19 dec 2011, at 12:50, Samuel J. Greear s...@evilcode.net wrote:
2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org:
Hello, Samuel.
You wrote 15 декабря 2011 г., 16:32:47:
Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
similarly
I have already canceled few replies to this thread, but...
On 19.12.11 15:16, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
IMHO, no offence, as always.
I feel obliged to include the same disclaimer :-)
As were told, Phoronix used default setup, not tuned.
Not really. They created some weird test
Hi ZFS users,
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of
a longer log of 10 second averages logged with gstat:
dT: 10.001s w: 10.000s filter: ^a?da?.$
L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps
On Monday 19 December 2011 13:16:17 Andriy Gapon wrote:
Hans Petter,
I think that I see some issues in the USB code that could cause problems in
some edge cases.
From easiest to hardest:
Hi,
1. I think that currently there is a LOR in usb_bus_shutdown. I think
that the following
Hi,
Can someone which have access to computer hardware which support system
suspend and resume please test FreeBSD-10-current after this commit:
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228709
Part of the test: Remove any custom rc.d scripts which load/unload
ehci/ohci/uhci/xhci during suspend
2011/12/19 Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org:
Hi ZFS users,
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of
a longer log of 10 second averages logged with gstat:
dT: 10.001s w: 10.000s filter: ^a?da?.$
First replying just to couple of points where there seems to be a
misunderstanding.
on 19/12/2011 16:30 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
2. Somewhat related to the above. I think that because the USB subsystem
implements the shutdown method and detaches all its drivers, then the ukbd
On Monday 19 December 2011 16:06:13 Andriy Gapon wrote:
First replying just to couple of points where there seems to be a
misunderstanding.
on 19/12/2011 16:30 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
2. Somewhat related to the above. I think that because the USB
subsystem implements the
On 12/19/2011 03:22 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Hi ZFS users,
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of
a longer log of 10 second averages logged with gstat:
dT: 10.001s w: 10.000s filter:
On 12/18/11 04:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The trouble is that there's lots of anecdotal evidence, but noone's
really gone digging deep into _their_ example of why it's broken. The
developers who know this stuff don't see anything wrong. That hints to
me it may be something a little more creepy - as
On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 2011-12-19 10:17, Doug Barton wrote:
I updated to r228700 from 228122 and dhclient exits immediately saying
that em0 doesn't exist. However ifconfig seems to disagree:
em0:
Hi,
a quick test using `dd if=/dev/zero of=/test ...` shows:
dT: 10.004s w: 10.000s filter: ^a?da?.$
L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
0378 0 0 12.5376 36414 11.9 60.6| ada0
0380 0 0 12.2378 36501 11.8
In the last episode (Dec 19), Stefan Esser said:
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load between
drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of a longer
log of 10 second averages logged with gstat:
dT: 10.001s w: 10.000s filter: ^a?da?.$
L(q)
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Peter Maloney wrote:
Swapping disks (or even removing one depending on controller, etc. when
it fails) without labels can be bad.
eg.
Since ZFS uses (and searches for) its own UUID partition signatures s
disk wapping shouldn't matter as long enough disks are found.
Set
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi ZFS users,
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of
a longer log of 10 second averages logged with gstat:
dT: 10.001s
on 19/12/2011 17:11 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
I will fix that. I see a missing wait there. Can I assume that we are allowed
to sleep from device_shutdown() and that system timers still work?
I don't see any reason why either of these should be not true.
Oh, and I see that you've
I have observed similar behavior, even more extreme on a spool with dedup
enabled. Is dedup enabled on this spool?
Might be that the DDT tables somehow end up unevenly distributed to disks. My
observation was on a 6 disk raidz2.
Daniel___
Am 19.12.2011 15:36, schrieb Olivier Smedts:
2011/12/19 Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org:
So: Can anybody reproduce this distribution requests?
Hello,
Stupid question, but are your drives all exactly the same ? I noticed
ashift: 12 so I think you should have at least one 4k-sector drive,
Am 19.12.2011 16:42, schrieb Peter Maloney:
On 12/19/2011 03:22 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
So: Can anybody reproduce this distribution requests?
I don't have a raidz1 machine, and no time to make you a special raidz1
pool out of spare disks, but on my raidz2 I can only ever see unevenness
when a
On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Using profiled libs and gprof to profile your code has been obsolete
in FreeBSD on i386 and amd64 for over six years now.
Funny, it still seems to work on my systems.
Worked for me last time I tried as well. Was able to find the problems
On Dec 2, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:21:14PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
The most important thing is to have reasonable defaults.
Having WITH_PROFILE by default does not seem to be a reasonable default to
me.
Now all users that want to profile anything
Hi,
Hm, so this lets us create a virtualbox image from what, a set of
install tarballs? Or /usr/src build?
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
2011/12/19 Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org
Hi,
Hm, so this lets us create a virtualbox image from what, a set of
install tarballs? Or /usr/src build?
I'm using cross-build and installation from sources dir (which is after
that got svn-up'ed and all goes again).
It shouldn't be complex to
Am 19.12.2011 17:22, schrieb Dan Nelson:
In the last episode (Dec 19), Stefan Esser said:
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load between
drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of a longer
log of 10 second averages logged with gstat:
dT:
Am 19.12.2011 17:48, schrieb Michael Reifenberger:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Peter Maloney wrote:
Swapping disks (or even removing one depending on controller, etc. when
it fails) without labels can be bad.
eg.
Since ZFS uses (and searches for) its own UUID partition signatures s
disk wapping
Am 19.12.2011 17:36, schrieb Michael Reifenberger:
Hi,
a quick test using `dd if=/dev/zero of=/test ...` shows:
dT: 10.004s w: 10.000s filter: ^a?da?.$
L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
0378 0 0 12.5376 36414 11.9 60.6| ada0
Am 19.12.2011 18:05, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi ZFS users,
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt of
a longer log of 10
On 2011-12-19 17:36, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Dimitry Andricd...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 2011-12-19 10:17, Doug Barton wrote:
I updated to r228700 from 228122 and dhclient exits immediately saying
that em0 doesn't exist. However ifconfig seems to disagree:
...
I saw
On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 19.12.2011 18:05, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi ZFS users,
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The
Am 19.12.2011 19:03, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
I have observed similar behavior, even more extreme on a spool with dedup
enabled. Is dedup enabled on this spool?
Thank you for the report!
Well, I had dedup enabled for a few short tests. But since I have got
only 8GB of RAM and dedup seems to
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 19.12.2011 19:03, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
I have observed similar behavior, even more extreme on a spool with dedup
enabled. Is dedup enabled on this spool?
Thank you for the report!
Well, I had dedup enabled for a few short tests.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 19.12.2011 19:03, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
I have observed similar behavior, even more extreme on a spool with dedup
enabled. Is dedup enabled on this spool?
Thank
on 19/12/2011 17:50 Nathan Whitehorn said the following:
The thing I've seen is that ULE is substantially more enthusiastic about
migrating processes between cores than 4BSD.
Hmm, this seems to be contrary to my theoretical expectations. I thought that
with 4BSD all threads that were not in
Am 19.12.2011 22:00, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
But it seems that others do not observe the asymmetric distribution of
requests, which makes me wonder whether I happen to have meta data
arranged in such a way that it is always read from ada0 or
Am 19.12.2011 22:07, schrieb Daniel Kalchev:
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Stefan Esser wrote:
Well, I had dedup enabled for a few short tests. But since I have got
only 8GB of RAM and dedup seems to require an order of magnitude more
to be working well, I switched dedup off again after a few
On Mon Dec 19 11, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 12/18/11 04:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The trouble is that there's lots of anecdotal evidence, but noone's
really gone digging deep into _their_ example of why it's broken. The
developers who know this stuff don't see anything wrong. That hints to
me
In the last episode (Dec 19), Stefan Esser said:
Am 19.12.2011 17:22, schrieb Dan Nelson:
In the last episode (Dec 19), Stefan Esser said:
for quite some time I have observed an uneven distribution of load
between drives in a 4 * 2TB RAIDZ1 pool. The following is an excerpt
of a longer
hi there,
i'm using a usb hdd with the following specs:
otaku% sudo smartctl -i /dev/da0
smartctl 5.42 2011-10-20 r3458 [FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:
Hi people!
I'm writing here because I'm having issues with compiling world from a
Symphony# uname -a
FreeBSD Symphony 9.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE #2: Fri Dec 16
18:52:44 ART 2011 vertex@Symphony:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
Machine with latest source from that date.
I'm using
In message 20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
ps: the hdd only gets mounted read-only!
There is no known wear-effects in flash storage as long as you
only read.
You may need to do refresh-writes every 5-10 years to avoid
tunnel-leakage bit errors, but most flash
Hi,
recently I have tried to build picobsd image for a different
architecture than the current one, with only partial success.
In particular, three weeks ago i committed some changes to the
picobsd script so now i can build working amd64 images on amd64.
However when i try a cross build (e.g.
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:53 PM, Dan Nelson wrote:
Since it looks like the algorithm ends up creating two half-cold parity
disks instead of one cold disk, I bet a 3-disk RAIDZ would exhibit even
worse balancing, and a 5-disk set would be more even.
There were some experiments a year or two
Putting it better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Read_disturb
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
ps: the hdd only gets mounted read-only!
There is no known wear-effects in flash storage as long as you
only read.
You may need to do refresh-writes every 5-10 years to avoid
In message 20111219224700.ga75...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
ps: the hdd only gets mounted read-only!
There is no known wear-effects in flash storage as long as you
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219224700.ga75...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
ps: the hdd only gets mounted read-only!
There is no known
In message 20111219225633.ga77...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
no problem. so will the improper alignment also not cause a life expectancy
shortage in case of a hdd (non-flash-based)?
Well, theoretically you will have more track-to-track seeks, as some
blocks will span cylinders, but I
On 12/19/2011 2:22 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
ps: the hdd only gets mounted read-only!
There is no known wear-effects in flash storage as long as you
only read.
No, sorry, that's not really true.
In message 4eefb9f3.80...@feral.com, Matthew Jacob writes:
On 12/19/2011 2:22 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
ps: the hdd only gets mounted read-only!
There is no known wear-effects in flash storage as long as you
only read.
On Mon Dec 19 11, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:56:33PM +, Alexander Best wrote:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219224700.ga75...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 03:20:10PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:56:33PM +, Alexander Best wrote:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219224700.ga75...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:56:33PM +, Alexander Best wrote:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219224700.ga75...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
On Mon Dec 19 11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20111219221617.ga70...@freebsd.org, Alexander Best writes:
Hi all,
just a thought here:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
As were told, Phoronix used default setup, not tuned.
Not really. They created some weird test environment, at least for FreeBSD
-- who knows, possibly for Linux as well.
For example, ZFS
Hi,
A recent NFS client crash:
http://glebius.int.ru/tmp/nfs_panic.jpg
appears to have happened because some field is
bogus when crfree() is called. I've asked Gleb
to disassemble crfree() for me, so I can try and
see exactly which field causes the crash, however...
Basically, the code:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#__builtin_unreachable
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1453.htm
Apparently this is the problem:
_Noreturn void abort(void);
// [...] more declarations
_Noreturn void exit(int);
Those noreturns are supposed to be
A follow-up on this is libc not building because of missing
SCTP_REMOTE_UDP_ENCAPS_PORT
apparently the Makefile doesn't include /sys/ into the includes of the libc.
My current version (/usr/include/netinet/sctp.h) lacks that definition,
it should look in the headers of the source, not the
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
no problem. so will the improper alignment also not cause a life expectancy
shortage in case of a hdd (non-flash-based)?
and one other question: the hdd also supports usb 3. will the improper
alignment have any effect (speed wise) when connected via
On 12/20/2011 01:52, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Alex Kustervertexsymph...@zoho.com wrote:
A follow-up on this is libc not building because of missing
SCTP_REMOTE_UDP_ENCAPS_PORT
apparently the Makefile doesn't include /sys/ into the includes of the libc.
My current
74 matches
Mail list logo
