Don Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for doing the testing. I just committed this patch.
Seems fine here too -- many thanks.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and qmail was fine. When I just upgraded to
5.1-CURRENT a couple days
Hi,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2003, Chris Shenton wrote:
[...] qmail is run under daemontools and all work fine (the configuration
is 2 years old!), but when I delivery the first mail (localy or remote)
the qmail-send process fire up to 100% of CPU infinitely
All other mail are right
On 16 Jun, Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2003, Chris Shenton wrote:
[...] qmail is run under daemontools and all work fine (the configuration
is 2 years old!), but when I delivery the first mail (localy or remote)
the qmail-send process fire up to 100% of CPU
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:09:51PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and
Hi,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
I don't know what it could be - perhaps a problem with named pipes
(lock/trigger)?
You can find my ktrace output here: http://cs.so36.net/~ths/kdump.txt
Which version of fifo_vnops.c? If the problem is present in
5.1-RELEASE, then the problem
On 16 Jun, Tim Robbins wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:09:51PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
On 16 Jun, I wrote:
On 16 Jun, Tim Robbins wrote:
This looks like a bug in the named pipe code. Reverting
sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c to the RELENG_5_0 version makes the problem go
away. I haven't tracked down exactly what change between RELENG_5_0 and
RELENG_5_1 caused the problem.
Looks
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
On 16 Jun, I wrote:
On 16 Jun, Tim Robbins wrote:
This looks like a bug in the named pipe code. Reverting
sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c to the RELENG_5_0 version makes the problem go
away. I haven't tracked down exactly what change between RELENG_5_0
On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
On 16 Jun, I wrote:
On 16 Jun, Tim Robbins wrote:
This looks like a bug in the named pipe code. Reverting
sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c to the RELENG_5_0 version makes the problem go
away. I haven't tracked down exactly
On 16 Jun, Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
I don't know what it could be - perhaps a problem with named pipes
(lock/trigger)?
You can find my ktrace output here: http://cs.so36.net/~ths/kdump.txt
Which version of fifo_vnops.c? If the problem is
Don Lewis wrote:
Actually, something seems broken. I modified my little test program to
actually read the data, which works just fine, but select() still blocks
when the writer closes the fifo, so there doesn't seem to be a way to
detect the EOF.
I think this should be covered under the
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
In my review of 1.87, I forgot to ask you how atomic the close is with part
of it moved out to fifo_inactive(). I think it's important that all
traces of the old open have gone away (as far as applications can tell)
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #1: Thu Jun 5 19:29:29 CEST 2003
fifo_vnops.c:
$FreeBSD: src/sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c,v 1.87 2003/06/01 06:24:32 truckman Exp $
Try upgrading to 1.88 and applying this patch:
Index: sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c
Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #1: Thu Jun 5 19:29:29 CEST 2003
fifo_vnops.c:
$FreeBSD: src/sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c,v 1.87 2003/06/01 06:24:32
truckman Exp $
Try upgrading to 1.88 and applying this patch:
Index:
On 16 Jun, Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #1: Thu Jun 5 19:29:29 CEST 2003
fifo_vnops.c:
$FreeBSD: src/sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c,v 1.87 2003/06/01 06:24:32 truckman Exp $
Try upgrading to 1.88 and applying this patch:
On 16 Jun, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
I run qmail on my 4.8 servers.
For my sanity, is this a problem in 5.1-RELEASE, or in code after 5.1-RELEASE?
We haven't upgraded to 5.1 yet (and don't intend to for a while), but I thought
I'd ask since this bug would cripple our mail server.
It was
On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
In my review of 1.87, I forgot to ask you how atomic the close is with part
of it moved out to fifo_inactive(). I think it's important that all
traces of the old open have gone away (as far
I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and qmail was fine. When I just upgraded to
5.1-CURRENT a couple days back, the qmail-send process started using
all CPU.
[snip]
19 matches
Mail list logo
