Re: questionable feature- rcvar woes

John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28 Nov 2007 14:37: Use forcestart or forcestop to manage services that are not enabled in rc.conf. This is normal. If you got a warning, then on shutdown every rc.d Most (all?) people recommend in this thread the use of forcestart / forcestop. Is it

Re: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE always hang

--- Michael Proto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unga wrote: Hi all I'm using FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on Intel P4 3.0GHz, 512MB Ram computer. Its very irritatingly hangs very frequently, more than 10 times a day. Do others find FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE always hangs? I simply cannot use it

Re: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE always hang

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 03:28 -0800, Unga wrote: --- Michael Proto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unga wrote: Hi all I'm using FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on Intel P4 3.0GHz, 512MB Ram computer. Its very irritatingly hangs very frequently, more than 10 times a day. Do others find

Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons, the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less identical apart from the processors I belive. Both have 7.0-BETA3

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons, the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less identical apart from the processors I belive. Both have 7.0-BETA3

Re: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE always hang

From: Tom Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:42:35 + Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 03:28 -0800, Unga wrote: --- Michael Proto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unga wrote: Hi all I'm using FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on Intel P4 3.0GHz, 512MB Ram

Re: installation problems of FreeBSD 7 beta 2 on Dell D610 (multiboot con solaris, linux, winxp)

Julian H. Stacey wrote: Julian H. Stacey wrote: Stefano stable@ I saw similar installing 7.0-BETA3 on my Digital HiHote Ultra .. I'll look for right syntax. eg maybe hw.ata.ata_dma=0 etc starting in my http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/hardware/laptops/#loader.conf Safe mode (Hit

Re: msdosfs performance unbearable

Norberto Meijome wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:47:24 +0100 Dominic Fandrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ufs: $ time -h tar -xf php_manual_en.tar.gz 3.31s real 0.43s user 0.51s sys I've seem something similar , in the past, on 6.2, when writing to my mobile

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

ULE- or 4BSD-scheduler? 4BSD - am just running GENERIC on both system. Should I try ULE? Bit OT: Are the servers DL360 or DL380 (G5)? I will upgrade a DL380 server from 6.2 to 7.0 (beta3) in order to gain some performance tomorrow. Both the old and new are DL360 G5 according the the iLo.

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

ULE- or 4BSD-scheduler? 4BSD - am just running GENERIC on both system. Should I try ULE? ULE has shown several improvements compared to 4BSD with more than one cpu. It's worth trying but may not improve the rm-rimes. Bit OT: Are the servers DL360 or DL380 (G5)? I will upgrade a DL380

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

On Thursday 29 November 2007, Pete French wrote: I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons, the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less identical apart from

Radeon/X freezes (was Re: FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE always hang)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:37:05AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: ... Can you verify that the machine is actually dead? Do you have another machine that you can hook up either to a serial console, or ssh into the dead box? Weird X symptoms could lead to an unresponsive keyboard, with the

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pete French wrote: On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad cores it takes about 3 minutes! This is true for both the 32 and 64 bit versions of FreeBSD :-( That almost certainly has nothing to do

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Pete French wrote: I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons, the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less identical apart from the processors I belive. Both

FreeBSD 6.3-RC1 Available...

The first of the Release Candidate builds for FreeBSD 6.3 is now available. There is one more Release Candidate planned, which will be followed by the release unless a major show-stopper issue crops up during testing. As mentioned in a previous HEADS-UP message the release branch has been

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Matt Reimer wrote: On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pete French wrote: On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad cores it takes about 3 minutes! This is true for both the 32 and 64 bit versions of FreeBSD :-( That almost certainly has

Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD

Alexey Popov wrote: Hi Kris Kennaway wrote: Now FreeBSD 7-STABLE ULE 8-core server without optimized PHP realpath_cache_size (producing 2000+ lstats per request) can handle up to ~24 rps as opposed to max. 17 rps without your patch. %sys never grows over %user with your patch. On the server

Re: questionable feature- rcvar woes

Frank Behrens wrote: John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28 Nov 2007 14:37: Use forcestart or forcestop to manage services that are not enabled in rc.conf. This is normal. If you got a warning, then on shutdown every rc.d Most (all?) people recommend in this thread the use of

MFC TO 6.X (6.3?) to fix aio_return() ?

This diff is a partial MFC (picking parts out of -current) that makes aio_return() return the error return of a completed AIO request. (as it does on othe OS's and in 7.x). The man page for 6.x and other OS's indicate that aio_return shoud return all the same results as a returning read()

Re: missing .cshrc and pf.conf after upgrade to 7.0-beta3

On Wednesday 28 November 2007 02:47:11 pm Colin Percival wrote: Miroslav Lachman wrote: I am not 100% sure, maybe I overlook something in binary major version upgrade procedure, but after upgrade from 6.2 to 7.0-BETA3 my roots ~/.cshrc was accidentally replaced with dist version of .cshrc

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on i386/pc98

TB --- 2007-11-29 19:46:59 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca TB --- 2007-11-29 19:46:59 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2007-11-29 19:46:59 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2007-11-29 19:47:14 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2007-11-29 19:47:14 -

Upgrading to 6.3-RC1 using freebsd-upgrade.sh Problem

Hello. After hearing FreeBSD 6.3-RC1 was released, I wanted to upgrade to that from my 6.3-BETA2 installation. This worked fine when I went from 6.2-RELEASE to 6.3-BETA2, but after trying to follow the directions at http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2007-11-10-freebsd-minor-version-upgrade.html I

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64

TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:12 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:12 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for ia64/ia64 TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:12 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:27 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:27 -

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:00 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:00 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:13 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:13 -

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

On Nov 29, 2007 11:20 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Reimer wrote: On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pete French wrote: On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad cores it takes about 3 minutes! This is true for

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Matt Reimer wrote: On Nov 29, 2007 11:20 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Reimer wrote: On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pete French wrote: On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad cores it takes about 3 minutes! This

[releng_7 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:23 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:23 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64 TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:23 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:35 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:35 -

Re: external usb disk

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Matthieu Bollot wrote: My problem is solved \o/ I followed this : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-usb/2007-March/003144.html and that : http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=110989 me too. The usbdevs patch doesn't apply cleanly but is easy to fix. Any

Re: cryptodev and ssh on RELENG_7

Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:37:49 -0500 Mike Tancsa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a HiFN crypto card and can remember that it was used for ssh connections with 3des encryption (on 6.1 afair). But with RELENG_7 it isn't used at all (no interrupts) if I 'ssh -v -c

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Pete French wrote: That almost certainly has nothing to do with how many CPUs your system has, since rm -rf is a single process running on a single core. Well, yes, common sense would also tell me that. But the systems should be identical aside from the number of cores. Both installed off

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Can you provide more details on this task? It seems like something that could easily be reproduced in a lab environment and serve as a regression test and baseline for future improvements. Is the server doing any other work while doing the rm, or is this it? What kind of directory layout

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

That almost certainly has nothing to do with how many CPUs your system has, since rm -rf is a single process running on a single core. Well, yes, common sense would also tell me that. But the systems should be identical aside from the number of cores. Both installed off 7.0-BETA3 CD's today,

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot. Regards Steve - Original Message - From: Pete French [EMAIL

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Thing is that GENERIC as installed out of the box should not take two minutes to delete a gig of files off a 15k RPM SAS drive! especially not when identical hardware with half the number of processor cores only takes eleven seconds to do the same job. Something is wrong somewhere if doubling

Re: FreeBSD 7b3 - ZFS crashes

Stefan Huerter wrote: Hello Just testing the new FB 7beta3 - installed from the ISO-images. System is running on an SCSI 9GB disk, the machine has 750MHz with 512MB Ram and the zfs is using 8 ATA Disks, 4x120GB and 4x160GB connected to Promise Fasttrak TX2 (with no configs). Creating the ZFS

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot. RAID card is onboard on these things - how would I check the dir hash ?

swapon running before savecore (was Re: RELENG_6 kernel panic + savecore(8) problem)

On 26/11/2007 1:33 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:21:36PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: I believe the problem is that /etc/rc.d/swap1 is being run before savecore. I'm guessing that swapon(8) actually destroys/clobbers the existing saved kernel panic/core data, thus one

FreeBSD 7b3 - ZFS crashes

Hello Just testing the new FB 7beta3 - installed from the ISO-images. System is running on an SCSI 9GB disk, the machine has 750MHz with 512MB Ram and the zfs is using 8 ATA Disks, 4x120GB and 4x160GB connected to Promise Fasttrak TX2 (with no configs). Creating the ZFS using zpool create tank

Re: Also seeing 2 x quad-core system slower that 2 x dual core

Hi Pete French wrote: Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot. RAID card is onboard on these things - how would I

7.0 BETA3 - slow TCP upload (TSO related?)

Hello, my configuration is kernel GENERIC em0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST metric 0 mtu 1500 options=18bRXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4 ether 00:19:d1:0f:1c:18 inet 86.49.14.16 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 86.49.14.255 media: