>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Daniel Braniss wrote:
>
> > disabling the krpc reply cache does it, no visible damage. Somehow
> > this reminds me of my old 1970 beetle, parts would fall off but it would
> > continue working :-)
> > where to go from here?
> >
> Ok, so it sounds like the leak is in the
> After checking with jhb@ re appropriate value of __FreeBSD_version for
> the test, I have submitted a build configuration patch to the sendmail
> folks so that a sendmail build on FreeBSD >= 30 will use
> nanosleep(). The patch has been accepted by sendmail and is attached
> for reference.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Daniel Braniss wrote:
disabling the krpc reply cache does it, no visible damage. Somehow
this reminds me of my old 1970 beetle, parts would fall off but it would
continue working :-)
where to go from here?
Ok, so it sounds like the leak is in the krpc reply cache code, if
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, 22:14 +1100, John Marshall wrote:
> Another thing I did was to patch the sendmail build config on another
> one of the servers, and rebuild, so that sendmail's sleep() would simply
> call FreeBSD's nanosleep(2). I have asked on comp.mail.sendmail if
> anyone knows why the send
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:16:51AM +, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:09:56AM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
> >> > > I'm going to get this kern.timecounter sysctl from the system booted
> >> > > with a 7.x livecd
> >>
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:09:56AM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
>> > > I'm going to get this kern.timecounter sysctl from the system booted
>> > > with a 7.x livecd
>> > > this evening. But really, I think this is a regression. Even if thi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:09:56AM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
> > > I'm going to get this kern.timecounter sysctl from the system booted with
> > > a 7.x livecd
> > > this evening. But really, I think this is a regression. Even if this
> > > system is the only
> > > one known to be affected (w
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:28:25AM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Alexander Motin schrieb am 03.03.2010 09:18 (localtime):
> >Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> >>Alexander Motin schrieb am 23.02.2010 16:10 (localtime):
> >>>Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> I'm frequently getting my machine locked w
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Daniel Braniss wrote:
>
> > runing with the experimental nfs server all is ok!
> > (at least I can't see any mbuf leakage :-)
> >
> > so now that we can assume that the problem is in NFS/UDP writes via
> > classic nfsserver, where to look?
> >
>
> It might also be the
Alexander Motin schrieb am 03.03.2010 09:18 (localtime):
Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
Alexander Motin schrieb am 23.02.2010 16:10 (localtime):
Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
I'm frequently getting my machine locked with ahcichX timeouts:
ahcich2: Timeout on slot 0
ahcich2: is cs 0001 ss
Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Alexander Motin schrieb am 23.02.2010 16:10 (localtime):
>> Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>> I'm frequently getting my machine locked with ahcichX timeouts:
>>> ahcich2: Timeout on slot 0
>>> ahcich2: is cs 0001 ss rs 0001 tfd c0 serr
>>> 000
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:36:32AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick typed:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:12:27PM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:09:21PM +0100, C. P. Ghost typed:
> > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Ruben de Groot wrote:
> > > > malenfant# sysctl kern.timecounter
12 matches
Mail list logo
