are enforced for both targets.)
More details on the daemon below.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 15:15:11 + (GMT)
From: Robert Watson rwat...@freebsd.org
To: curr...@freebsd.org
Cc: secur...@freebsd.org
Feb 2011 23:28:35 + (UTC)
From: Robert Watson rwat...@freebsd.org
To: src-committ...@freebsd.org, svn-src-...@freebsd.org,
svn-src-sta...@freebsd.org, svn-src-stabl...@freebsd.org
Subject: svn commit: r219107 - in stable/8/sys: amd64/amd64 amd64/include
boot/common cddl/compat/opensolaris
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Which part of support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was
removed [emphasis mine] do you not understand?
No, component removed was (1), I've underlined.
The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
For a
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
- Or whatever other method to get ISDN back in kernel ?
It seems code exists :-)
http://old.nabble.com/ISDN4BSD-on-8-current-td23919925.html
ISDN4BSD package has been updated to compile on FreeBSD
8-current
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, William D. Colburn (Schlake) wrote:
So I've just upgraded from whatever was stable in 2004 to 8.1 (it's a
private file server in my house, I pay no attention to it until it crashes),
and uh, the speed difference is very noticeable. In short, it's like I
bought a brand
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The result of the RFC was that bind is not a mandatory component to make a
usable system, so you argument suffers from bad logic.
With an eye on the date of Doug's suggestive e-mail, I actually am concerned
that we maintain support for DNSSEC
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Robert Watson wrote:
If your system shows a non-zero value, please send me a *private e-mail*
with the output of that command, plus also the output of sysctl kern.smp,
uptime, and a brief description of the workload and network interface
configuration. For example: it's
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Doug Hardie wrote:
I run a number of 4 core systems with em interfaces. These are production
systems that are unmanned and located a long way from me. Under unusual
conditions it can take up to 6 hours to get there. I have been waiting to
switch to 8.0 because of the
Dear all:
I'm embarking on some new network stack locking work, which requires me to
address a number of loose ends in the current model. A few years ago, my
attention was drawn to a largly theoretical race, which had existed in the BSD
code since inception. It is detected and handled in
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Daniel Braniss wrote:
link_elf_obj: symbol lapic_cyclic_clock_func undefined
when trying
kldload dtraceall this is with a fearly resent 8-stable
I'm trying to help Rick Maclem debug the NSF/UDP problem, and I thought it
would be a good chance to learn
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Take a look at the DTrace configuration information here:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/dtrace.html
I've just reread it (despite the fact that I already used it). Some
comments:
Last time I tried, I didn't see any
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Spil Oss wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation!
Is anything known re. a timeline for implementation of wireless-N? (8.1?
9.0?)
I know that Rui Paulo is working on this actively; I've added him to the CC
line as I'm not sure if he follows freebsd-stable.
Robert N M
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Ken Smith wrote:
Just a quick note in case there are people here who aren't subscribed to the
freebsd-announce@ mailing list.
We have completed the 8.0-RELEASE cycle. Details about the release are
available from the main web site, in particular the announcement itself
: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:21:40 + (GMT)
From: Robert Watson rob...@fledge.watson.org
To: libdispatch-...@lists.macosforge.org
Subject: [libdispatch-dev] FreeBSD 8-STABLE now supports GCD,
libdispatch port updated
Dear all:
Just an FYI that all the parts are now in place to use GCD
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ivan Voras wrote:
Thomas Backman wrote:
I'm copying this over from the freebsd-performance list, as I'm looking for
a few more opinions - not on the problems *I* am having, but rather to
check whether the problem is universal or not, and if not, find a possible
common
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Are you sure? The majority of BSD machines in my vicinity have multiple
accounts.
And even if there's only one account, there is no reason to be careless with
potential port-takeover risks.
Therefore I advise against running critical daemons on
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
This was caused by your setting of the following:
security.bsd.map_at_zero=0 You can reset that value to 1 and you should be
alright to operate like normal otherwise you will have to compile samba
over again with the above mentioned configure
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Daniel Eischen wrote:
While it's probably a bug that the Samba port compiles --pie, it's also a
bug that our linking bits aren't handling PIE properly either. The goal is
to fix PIE with the non-NULL mapping feature in the immediate future, so
with any luck the abort
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Jamie Gritton wrote:
It seems to be NFS related. I think the null pointer in question is from
the export's anonymous credential. Try the patch below and see if it helps
(which I guess means run it overnight and see if it crashes again). I've
also patched a similar
For those tracking the 8.0 release process, BETA3 builds have now started.
They were held up for a few days while a few critical issues were resolved:
- Changes to make newbus MPSAFE were reverted as they lead to reports of a
number of WITNESS warnings and panics during device driver
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
I would like to do a binary upgrade from 7.1 to 7.2. I've seen the
instructions here: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.2R/announce.html
I've heard that it's safest to start the machine in single user mode when
doing upgrades, but I see no notice
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Pete French wrote:
I don't have a specific ETA on BETA3 going out the door, except to say that
so far several architectures have reported back on successful builds, so
probably quite soon.
Is there any point in making bug reports for BETA2 at this point ? I only
got to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, CmdLnKid wrote:
came back or the machine was rebooted. I continued for a while using
/var/mail over NFS while setting or unset mail variables for the shell. You
may also want to check into whether something is trying to acquire
Just a quick status update from the release engineering team:
As was discussed on this mailing list, problems with the Subversion-CVS
exporter arose during the RELENG_8 branching process. These have now been
resolved, and for the last day or so, pending bug fixes have been rushing into
the
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Rink Springer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:04:31AM -0400, David Boyd wrote:
Can someone PLEASE commit this fix.
This fix looks OK to me; I'll ask re@ for permission.
Just a status update: this is in the re@ queue but approval is pending
completion of the stable/7
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Matthew Fleming wrote:
I'm doing a migration from releng/6.1 to stable/7, and one of the many new
things is that I get a warning when doing things with ng_socket that didn't
used to happen.
WARNING: attempt to net_add_domain(netgraph) after domainfinalize()
I've
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Oliver Pinter wrote:
It is a kernel panic, when force unmount the smbfs volume or lost the
connection with the samba server.
This is a NULL pointer dereference in the kernel. Per Attilio's e-mail, a
stack trace should help us track it down. Thanks!
Robert N M Watson
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Ian J Hart wrote:
Is this likely to be hardware? Details will follow if not.
This looks like a kernel NULL pointer deference (faulting address 0x0), which
means it is most likely a kernel bug, although it could be triggered by a
hardare problem. If this early in the
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Is it possible I am running into some of the interface lock fixes rwatson
has been working on ? This box has a lot of ng interfaces which come and
go. Perhaps snmp asking about an interface that just went away caused the
panic ? I disabled bsnmp
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 04:53 PM 4/21/2009, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
Just FYI, the same problem has already been registered in pr database as
kern/132734.
Thanks,
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=132734 does look familiar
:) If you disable the snmpwalk, is
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 11:31 AM 4/21/2009, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
:
: Note that these changes simply close races around use of ifindex_table,
: and make no attempt to solve the probem of disappearing ifnets. Further
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
RW There are several bugs here, one difficult to fix (lack of
RW refcounting), but also stuff like ifp being derived from an interface
RW number twice, but checked against NULL only the first time (line 85
RW checked for NULL, re-queried but no check
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, kama wrote:
What I meant was the todo page on www.freebsd.org.
Like: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.2R/TODO.html
Where problems and showstoppers where brought up. I found that information
very valueble. Especially when the release went overdue I could easily see
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Jack Raats wrote:
One of the most important things for us to keep an eye on in this release
is that the boot loader now works on a number of pieces of hardware on
which it reressed for 6.4/7.1. If it proves successful, we'll likely also
do errata notes and roll new ISOs
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, kama wrote:
Since it's often the case that developers process quite a few outstanding
MFCs during the last couple days before a code freeze starts I have changed
RELENG_7 to say it is 7.2-PRERELEASE now as a bit of a heads-up that the
release cycle is imminent. You
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
I'll need to think a bit about a proper fix for this, but you'll find the
problem likely goes away if you eliminate all uid/gid/jail rules from your
firewall. You could also tweak the syncache logic not to use a retransmit
timer, which might slightly
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Ken Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 10:23 +0100, kama wrote:
Is it possible to get back the todo page during this release phase?
During the last couple of releases I simply didn't have time to do
everything and this was one of the things that fell by the wayside.
Dear all:
With 7.2 approaching, I wanted to review the set of known network bug reports
(especially panics, hangs, lock order reversals) relating to TCP, UDP,
sockets, and routing in 7-STABLE.
If you are aware of problems along these that you can confirm definitely occur
with 7-STABLE
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
Right, here we go!
...
Turns out that the problem is a lock cycle triggered by the syncache calling,
indirectly, the firewall during output, and the firewall trying to look up the
connection for the packet. Thread one:
Tracing PID 31 tid 100030
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
I recently installed my first amd64 system (currently running RELENG_7 from
2009-03-11) to replace an aged ppc box and have been having dramas with the
network locking up.
Breaking into the debugger manually and ps-ing shows the network card (e.g.,
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Nick Withers wrote:
Sorry for the original double-post, by the way, not quite sure how that
happened...
I can reproduce this problem relatively easily, by the way (every 3 days, on
average). I meant to say this before, too, but it seems to happen a lot more
often on the
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Robert Watson wrote:
Sounds like a lock leak -- if you're running INVARIANTS, then show allocks
should read WITNESS
and show allchains would be useful. I've had a report of a TCP lock leak
possibly in tcp_input
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
Just a minor heads up: I've merged both Kip Macy's lock order fixes to the
kernel routing code, and the route locking and reference counting fixes
from kern/130652 to stable/7. These fixes should correct a number of
reported network-related
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Yoshihiro Ota wrote:
I thought rc used to start nfsiod if you set nfs_cilent_enable back years
ago. Now, on my 7.1-RELEASE machine, it sets up a couple of sysctls in
/etc/rc.d/nfsclient script but not nfsiod.
Is nfsiod obsolete by now?
It is still on the system; does it
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Pete French wrote:
FYI, I'm currently awaiting testing results from Pete on the MFC of a
number of routing table locking fixes, and once that's merged (hopefully
tomorrow?) I'll start on the patches in the above PR. I've taken a
crash-course in routing table locking in
of Cambridge
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Pete French wrote:
FYI, I'm currently awaiting testing results from Pete on the MFC of a
number of routing table locking fixes, and once that's merged (hopefully
tomorrow?) I'll start on the patches in the above PR
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, aneeth wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=130652cat=
OK, will give this a try, unless anyone else wants any traces from this
locked machine ? Is there a known way to tickle this bug when I've
rebooted, to make sure it's fixed ?
We'v been having similar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I have a single-CPU system with P4 HTT-enabled processor (7.1-RELEASE-p3),
kernel compiled with SCHED_ULE.
This is because machdep.hlt_logical_cpus doesn't do what you think it does.
It causes HTT cores to invoke the hlt instruction in
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
In the mean time, it sounds like the sysctl does need to be reimplemented
or removed, but one question is how far to take it -- caches are shared to
varying degrees at varying levels of the topology. However, I believe
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote:
It's not quite that simple -- in a world of device drivers pinning threads to
CPUs for workload distribution, callout threads and sched_bind()/sched_pin()
for crypto load distribution, etc, you need a whole infrastructure for
software-disabled CPUs
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Unfortunately access to BIOS is not always an option and also some BIOSes
don't even provide a feature to turn HTT off.
It's not quite that simple -- in a world of device drivers pinning threads
to CPUs for workload distribution, callout threads and
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mike Tancsa wrote:
Do you have any other details about these issues ? Were the fixes
ever MFC'd
Earlier today I handed off some patches for Pete to test (attached below),
which he's running alongside the patches in kern/130652. When I run with the
patches,
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 05:38 PM 1/29/2009, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
I have a number of HP 1U servers, all of which were running 7.0 perfectly
happily. I have been testing 7.1 in it's various incarnations for the last
couple of months
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, James Chang wrote:
Does any ever try FreeBSD 7.1-stable on box that has more than 16 CPU?
I got a HP ProLiant DL 785 G5 with 32 core (Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm)
Processor 8356 (2300.10-MHz K8-class CPU) and 256G memory. When I boot this
machine, it could detect 32
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-Feb-08 11:31:45 +0200, Danny Braniss da...@cs.huji.ac.il wrote:
Q: with rxcsum on, and a bad checksum packet is received, is it
dropped by the NIC? if not, then it somewhat explains the behaviour
If checksum offloading is working correctly
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
looking at the bce source, it's not clear (to me :-). If errors are detected
in bce_rx_intr(), the packet gets dropped, which I would expect to be the
treatment of an offloded chekcum error, but it seems that is not the case.
I think we're thinking
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Danny Braniss wrote:
looking at the bce source, it's not clear (to me :-). If errors are
detected in bce_rx_intr(), the packet gets dropped, which I would expect
to be the treatment of an offloded chekcum error, but it seems that
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote:
RW Thank you for clarification, now I see this is actually expected behaviour
RW :)
RW
RW Would then starting second jail with the same root and, say, 127.10.0.1 as
RW an address be a workaround?
RW
RW
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Klapper Zhu wrote:
I am exploring DTrace on 7.1-STABLE FreeBSD amd64 and I found several
weird behaviors:
1) Not all kernel functions show up in fbt provider. Take isp(4) as example:
dtrace -l shows
static void isp_freeze_loopdown(ispsoftc_t *, int, char *);
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
Thank you for clarification, now I see this is actually expected behaviour
:)
Would then starting second jail with the same root and, say, 127.10.0.1 as
an address be a workaround?
There's no technical reason you can't have more than one jail
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Borja Marcos wrote:
The attached graphs are from a server running FreeBSD 7.1-i386 (now) with
the typical Apache2+MySQL with forums, Joomla...
I just cannot explain this. Disk I/O bandwidth was suffering a lot, and
after the update the disks are almost idle.
Any
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
am I right concluding that under FreeBSD jail there is no way to attach two
processes to the same port of external interface address and localhost?
I tried to move rather standard two-tier nginx(ip:80)+apache(127.1:80)
scheme into a jail and on
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
I have a number of HP 1U servers, all of which were running 7.0 perfectly
happily. I have been testing 7.1 in it's various incarnations for the last
couple of months on our test server and it has performed perfectly.
So the last two days I have been
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, dikshie wrote:
Hi,
how to kill unkillable process:
# ps axuf |grep http
www 66005 73.4 1.3 87656 13164 ?? R 4:58PM 62:24.41
/usr/local/sbin/httpd -DSSL -DNOHTTPACCEPT
www 4277 71.6 1.4 88680 13964 ?? R 4:12PM 48:23.40
/usr/local/sbin/httpd -DSSL
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
hi, please type: show lock 0xff0001254d20 and then show thread
0xXXX where X is 'owner' of previous output.
http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/~pete/71_pdns_lock.png
That's in Power DNS - which is interesting because the one difference
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
I rather feared as much. Let's run down the path of perhaps there's a
problem with the new UDP locking code for a bit and see where it takes us.
Is it possible to run those boxes with WITNESS -- I believe that the fact
that show alllocks is failing is
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
Just an update on this - I tried the various kernels, but now the machine is
not locking up at all. As I havent actually chnaged anything then this does
not make me as happy as you might expect. I don;t know what to do now - I
daare not upgrade the
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
In any case, if it starts to reproduceably recur, send out mail and we can
see if we can track it down some more. BTW, did you establish if the
version of iLo you have has a remote NMI? I seem to recall that some do,
and being able to deliver an NMI
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
desirable. You might want to give the NMI a test run just to make sure it
behaves as you think it should, though -- be aware that if DDB/KDB aren't
compiled into the kernel, then an NMI will panic the box.
Unfortunately it does this...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
If you have BREAK_TO_DEBUGGER compiled into the kernel, then try pressing
ctrl-alt-break on the console to see if you can drop into the debugger, or
issue a serial break on a serial console.
Well, I added BREAK_TO_DEBUGGER to the kernel config I had
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
Features like WITNESS and INVARIANTS may change the timing of the kernel
making certain race conditions less likely; I'd run with them for a bit and
see if you can reproduce the hang with them present, as they will make
debugging the problem a lot
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
I can't (fortunately) make it lock up. I have a DL360 G5 which is unused
atm. and can test on it if needed.
Would it be possible to install that under amd64 and hammer it with DNS
requests ? I have been trying to think what the difference might be
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 2:39 PM -0500 1/9/09, Robert Blayzor wrote:
On Jan 8, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Pete French wrote:
I have a number of HP 1U servers, all of which were running 7.0 perfectly
happily. I have been testing 7.1 in it's various incarnations for the last
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
FWIW, the other guy I know who is having this problem had already switched
to using ULE under 7.0-release, and did not have any problems with it. So
*his* problem was probably not related to SCHED_ULE, unless something has
recently changed there.
/09, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 2:39 PM -0500 1/9/09, Robert Blayzor wrote:
On Jan 8, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Pete French wrote:
I have a number of HP 1U servers, all of which were running 7.0
perfectly happily. I have been testing 7.1 in it's various
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Pete French wrote:
I'm not sure if you've done this already, but the normal suggestions apply:
have you compiled with INVARIANTS/WITNESS/DDB/KDB/BREAK_TO_DEBUGGER, and do
any results / panics / etc result? Sometimes these debugging tools are
able to convert hangs into
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
He is not eager to do a whole lot of experiments to track down the problem,
since this is happening on busy production machines and he can't afford to
have a lot of downtime on them (especially now that the semester at RPI has
started up). The
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Brandon Weisz wrote:
http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/fxp/if_fxp.c
http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/fxp/if_fxpreg.h
http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/fxp/if_fxpvar.h
With this version, the system still panics as before.
After the system panic with this patch, I went
the output of uname -a on the system?
Thanks,
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Robert Watson rwat...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Lin Jui-Nan Eric wrote:
After running netstat -s -p tcp, we found that lots of packets
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Terry Kennedy wrote:
I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but I don't see a kernel
stack trace of the stuck thread/process. Could you grab one using procstat
-k, DDB, or KGDB? I'd like to confirm that the 'sbwait' really reflects
waiting to send, rather than
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Lin Jui-Nan Eric wrote:
After running netstat -s -p tcp, we found that lots of packets are
discarded due to memory problems. We googled for it, and found that sysctl
oid net.inet.tcp.reass.maxsegments became 0, therefore packets never
reassembled.
Then we checked our
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Terry Kennedy wrote:
Sorry, I can't think of any - by the time you see it hung, whatever went
wrong has already happened. You might glean some insight from the TCP
socket state (on the FreeBSD side, use 'netstat -A' to print the PCB
address and gdb to dump the contents
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
In several of the recent ZFS posts, multiple people have asked when this
will be MFC'd to 7.x. This query has been studiously ignored as other
chatter about whatever ZFS issue is discussed.
Presumably the MFC schedule is largely up to Pawel, who
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ryan wrote:
Hello, I purchased a new Clevo M860TU on the account that it ran linux very
well and was hoping it would fair the same on FreeBSD. Not so much, little
help? I posted this in mobile originally but though stable would be a better
choice. Don't know if it is more
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Chris St Denis wrote:
Serious question here (not trolling).
These patches have been around for years, why have they never been committed
to trunk/stable?
Network stacks are incredibly complicated pieces of software, and some of the
short-cuts jail took to accomplish
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'll see whether the system still locks up or not though..
Okay, I'm bringing rwatson@ into the thread since this is specific to UDP.
I've now fixed the bug leading to the lock order reversal; I'd
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'll see whether the system still locks up or not though..
Okay, I'm bringing rwatson@ into the thread since this is specific to UDP.
Crumbs. It looks like the tunable fetch got dropped into the wrong function
of udp_inpcb_init() and
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I'll see whether the system still locks up or not though..
Okay, I'm bringing rwatson@ into the thread since this is specific to UDP.
I've now fixed the bug leading to the lock order reversal; I'd be interested
in knowing if it also corrects
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Not to dissuade you from what you're trying to accomplish, but nslookup
has been deprecated (this has been stated a few times by the BIND folks),
and host is probably on its way out as well (though I remember somewhere,
sometime, nslookup used to
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Dr. Aharon Friedman wrote:
Sorry, I meant BSD.
Here is the link:
http://www.freebsd.org/news/press-rel-3.html
Aharon Friedman
I don't see the origina message you replied to on the list, so am replying to
it via your post...
I'm just a lurker, but even I know that
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
at the moment, the best I can do is run it on a different hardware that has
if_em, the results are in
ftp://ftp.cs.huji.ac.il/users/danny/lock.prof/7.1-1000.em the
benchmark ran better with the Intel NIC, averaged UDP 54MB/s, TCP 53MB/s (I
get the
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
it more difficult than I expected.
for one, the kernel date was missleading, the actual source update is the key,
so
the window of changes is now 28/July to 19/August. I have the diffs, but nothing
yet seems relevant.
on the other hand, I tried
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
gladly, but have no idea how to do LOCK_PROFILING, so some pointers would be
helpfull.
The LOCK_PROFILING(9) man page isn't a bad starting point -- I find that the
defaults work fine most of the time, so just use them. Turn the enable syscl
on just
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
OK, so it looks like this was almost certainly the rwlock change. What
happens if you pretty much universally substitute the following in
udp_usrreq.c:
Currently Change to
- -
INP_RLOCK
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
gladly, but have no idea how to do LOCK_PROFILING, so some pointers would
be helpfull.
The LOCK_PROFILING(9) man page isn't a bad starting point -- I find that
the defaults work fine most of the time, so
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Stephen Clark wrote:
A big part of problem is this seems to take about 100 days of uptime to
occur. We have some inhouse test boxes but have never seen the problem,
probably because non of them have been up more than about 45 days. The units
in the field, of which there
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Gary Palmer wrote:
Periodically logging ps -auxw output to a file would be useful, as
ideally you'd gradually see the list get longer and longer over time; it's
possible you have many zombie processes as a result of a parent which is
not reaping its children (calling
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, George Mamalakis wrote:
I have 3 servers in my lab. 2 of them are running 6-STABLE and one of them
is running 7-STABLE. All three have services running in jails. I noticed a
very peculiar behavior in 6-STABLE when I set the sysctl
security.mac.seeotheruids.enabled=1. The
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 22:14 +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
Any idea what I could do to shed some more light on this behaviour?
Why it is happening and what really is causing it?
Would enabling the kernel debugger really help here? I mean the
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
However, the request/respones tests are awfull for my notebook (test
repeated on the notebook for the sake of conviction) :
Is it possible to rerun these tests with a 7.0 kernel of the same general
configuration? That would help us determine if
1 - 100 of 564 matches
Mail list logo
