Re: happy hacker lite 2 keyboard
The Happy Hacking keyboard doesn't have a numpad. I didn't have any problems because of this, regardless of having it enabled/disabled in the BIOS. Sorry for late reply. My old keyboard has numpad part. Since hh lite 2 has it not, I simply ask for behaveor of kb with options I set. I turn off numpad support in bios first. It removes numpad and let me jump from one part of the big screen in fvwm2 to the other one. If I turn numpad on, I cannot do that. Since I never used usb keyboard, cannot comment on the other concern, hh lite 2 and booting process. Best regards all Zoran ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Succeed in a Tough Economy!
Succeed in a Tough Economy! A small business can turn a bad economy into a great opportunity. According to a = recent study, more business owners and managers are turning to E-mail Marketing then = ever before. Every other type of advertising has declined in sales = - except E-mail Marketing. This proves that it works! When you launch your E-mail = Marketing program with [1]our company you have access to powerful tools that can help = you grow revenue, find new customers and achieve your online marketing goals. We Have Access To 45 Million Businesses 200 Million Consumers. Drive traffic directly to your = website with ease using our [2]turnkey e-mail = marketing programs! [3]Click Here to get our FREE Information Packet! OUR OFFER: Our Graphics Team Designs Your AD You Pick Your Ideal = Target Audience We = Provide OPT-IN Customer List We Scrub Do not E-mail Database Send E-mails Using = our Servers Track Click-Thru's Open Rates Direct Traffic To = Your Web site Customer = Contacts You Interested Blast Can Broken Up As You Need 1 (800) = 330-4022 [4]Click Here to get our FREE Information Packet! The Decision To Grow Is = Yours. Are You Ready? = /td [5][ljoq3] References Visible links 1. 3Dmailto:getsalesinstan...@gmx.com?cc=freebsd-stable@freebsd.orgam 2. 3Dhttp://tiny.cc/96w2p; 3. 3Dmailto:getsalesinstan...@gmx.com?cc=freebsd-stable@freebsd.orgam 4. 3Dmailto:getsalesinstan...@gmx.com?cc=freebsd-stable@freebsd.orgam 5. 3Dmailto:stopthisst...@gmx.com; Hidden links: 6. 3Dhttp://tiny.cc/96w2p; ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
ZFS v28 and zil_disable
BTW, I'm noticing the removal of vfs.zfs.zil_disable as well - It's not listed
as a sysctl when I check vfs.zfs, but I see it's still in the source code;
In usr/src/sys/cddl/ :
# grep -r zil_disable *
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/sys/zil.h.orig:extern int
zil_disable;
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:int zil_disable = 0;
/* disable intent logging */
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:TUNABLE_INT(vfs.zfs.zil_disable,
zil_disable);
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs,
OID_AUTO, zil_disable, CTLFLAG_RW, zil_disable, 0,
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c.orig: if
(zil_disable) {
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zvol.c.orig: if (bp-bio_cmd
== BIO_FLUSH !zil_disable)
I know Sun was trying to move away from allowing people to disable the ZIL, but
was this by design in the FreeBSD port, or are we just missing some code to
link the sysctl up with the code to easily disable the ZIL?
I'll try setting zil_disable=1 in the source tomorrow and recompile to see if
it works. It's such a huge speed increase for some operations (80MB/sec with
ZIL, 450 MB/sec without ZIL) that I still use zil_disable.
I'll also have to check my 9.0-CUR v28 patch, although I assume it's the same.
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Yves Avenard
Sent: December-27-10 1:31 AM
To: jhell
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New ZFSv28 patchset for 8-STABLE: Kernel Panic
Jean-Yves
PS: saving my 5MB files over the network , went from 40-55s with v15 to a
constant 16s with v28... I can't test with ZIL completely disabled , it seems
that vfs.zfs.zil_disable has been removed, and so did
vfs.zfs.write_limit_override ___
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On 2010-Dec-30 07:20:57 -0500, Dan Langille d...@langille.org wrote: The reason I've not installed ZFS on root is because of the added complications. I run the OS on ufs (with gmirror) and my data is on ZFS. We must be hanging out with different groups. Most of the people I know don't have ZFS on root. My primary system at home is setup this way - primarily because at the time I built it (Nov 2008), I felt ZFS was a bit immature and wanted to have src and obj on UFS so I could do a rebuild if I lost access to ZFS for some reason. My experience has been that the UFS root has caused me far more headaches than the ZFS parts. I've since done some reconfiguration and plan to switch to ZFS root soon. Based on my experiences at home, I converted my desktop at work to pure ZFS. The only issues I've run into have been programs that extensively use mmap(2) - which is a known issue with ZFS. -- Peter Jeremy pgp9CvWOJe1I9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:33:43AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2010-Dec-30 07:20:57 -0500, Dan Langille d...@langille.org wrote: The reason I've not installed ZFS on root is because of the added complications. I run the OS on ufs (with gmirror) and my data is on ZFS. We must be hanging out with different groups. Most of the people I know don't have ZFS on root. My primary system at home is setup this way - primarily because at the time I built it (Nov 2008), I felt ZFS was a bit immature and wanted to have src and obj on UFS so I could do a rebuild if I lost access to ZFS for some reason. My experience has been that the UFS root has caused me far more headaches than the ZFS parts. I've since done some reconfiguration and plan to switch to ZFS root soon. Based on my experiences at home, I converted my desktop at work to pure ZFS. The only issues I've run into have been programs that extensively use mmap(2) - which is a known issue with ZFS. Is your ZFS root filesystem associated with a pool that's mirrored or using raidzX? What about mismatched /boot content (ZFS vs. UFS)? What about booting into single-user mode? http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSOnRoot indirectly hints at these problems but doesn't outright admit them (yet should), so I'm curious to know how people have solved them. Remembering manual one-offs for a system configured this way is not acceptable (read: highly prone to error/mistake). Is it worth the risk? Most administrators don't have the tolerance for stuff like that in the middle of a system upgrade or what not; they should be able to follow exactly what's in the handbook, to a tee. There's a link to www.dan.me.uk at the bottom of the above Wiki page that outlines the madness that's required to configure the setup, all of which has to be done by hand. I don't know many administrators who are going to tolerate this when deploying numerous machines, especially when compounded by the complexities mentioned above. The mmap(2) and sendfile(2) complexities will bite an junior or mid-level SA in the butt too -- they won't know why software starts failing or behaving oddly (FreeBSD ftpd is a good example). It just so happens that Apache, out-of-the-box, comes with mmap and sendfile use disabled. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On 2010-Dec-30 02:31:30 -0500, Adam Stylinski kungfujesu...@gmail.com wrote: I can tell you what the problem is right now, actually. ZFS performs very poorly on low performance CPUs (i.e. your Atom N330). I would disagree. In this case, the op's most serious problem is a bug in sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c:arc_memory_throttle() which is leading to ARC starvation. The direct effect of this is very poor ZFS I/O performance. It can be identified by very high inactive and possibly cache memory (as reported by 'systat -v' or top) as well as very high kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats.memory_throttle_count This bug was fixed in r210427 on -current, r211599 on 8.x and r211623 on 7.x. Try the same system with a different CPU and you'll get a different result. Not until the above bug is fixed. That said, ZFS is far more CPU intensive than UFS and a more powerful CPU may help - especially if you want gzip compression and/or sha256 checksumming. -- Peter Jeremy pgpRE0BXxVZbL.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: ZFS v28 and zil_disable
Oh, and then I read what I post, and notice that the zil_disable parts are in
the .orig files, from the patch. :-)
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to invest in a proper ZIL device.
--
Christopher Forgeron, B.Sc., CCS, A+, N+
ACSI Consulting, Inc / Aardvark Computer Solutions, Inc.
email: ch...@acsi.ca
2070 Oxford Street, Suite 100, Halifax NS B3L-2T2
Tel: 902-425-2686 Fax: 902-484-7909
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chris Forgeron
Sent: December-31-10 6:01 PM
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: ZFS v28 and zil_disable
BTW, I'm noticing the removal of vfs.zfs.zil_disable as well - It's not listed
as a sysctl when I check vfs.zfs, but I see it's still in the source code;
In usr/src/sys/cddl/ :
# grep -r zil_disable *
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/sys/zil.h.orig:extern int
zil_disable;
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:int zil_disable = 0;
/* disable intent logging */
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:TUNABLE_INT(vfs.zfs.zil_disable,
zil_disable);
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs,
OID_AUTO, zil_disable, CTLFLAG_RW, zil_disable, 0,
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c.orig: if
(zil_disable) {
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zvol.c.orig: if (bp-bio_cmd
== BIO_FLUSH !zil_disable)
I know Sun was trying to move away from allowing people to disable the ZIL, but
was this by design in the FreeBSD port, or are we just missing some code to
link the sysctl up with the code to easily disable the ZIL?
I'll try setting zil_disable=1 in the source tomorrow and recompile to see if
it works. It's such a huge speed increase for some operations (80MB/sec with
ZIL, 450 MB/sec without ZIL) that I still use zil_disable.
I'll also have to check my 9.0-CUR v28 patch, although I assume it's the same.
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Yves Avenard
Sent: December-27-10 1:31 AM
To: jhell
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New ZFSv28 patchset for 8-STABLE: Kernel Panic
Jean-Yves
PS: saving my 5MB files over the network , went from 40-55s with v15 to a
constant 16s with v28... I can't test with ZIL completely disabled , it seems
that vfs.zfs.zil_disable has been removed, and so did
vfs.zfs.write_limit_override ___
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ZFS v28 and zil_disable
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Chris Forgeron cforge...@acsi.ca wrote:
BTW, I'm noticing the removal of vfs.zfs.zil_disable as well - It's not
listed as a sysctl when I check vfs.zfs, but I see it's still in the source
code;
In usr/src/sys/cddl/ :
# grep -r zil_disable *
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/sys/zil.h.orig:extern int
zil_disable;
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:int zil_disable = 0;
/* disable intent logging */
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:TUNABLE_INT(vfs.zfs.zil_disable,
zil_disable);
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs,
OID_AUTO, zil_disable, CTLFLAG_RW, zil_disable, 0,
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c.orig: if
(zil_disable) {
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zvol.c.orig: if
(bp-bio_cmd == BIO_FLUSH !zil_disable)
All the files above show that the original files (*.orig) have the zil_disable.
Your grep of the sources shows that zil_disable was removed from
zil.h, zil.c, zfs_vfsops.c and zvol.c. I looked at pjd's perforce
repository and found that zil_disable was renamed to
zil_replay_disable.
Scot
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: ZFS v28 and zil_disable
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 08:01:17PM -0400, Chris Forgeron wrote:
Oh, and then I read what I post, and notice that the zil_disable parts are in
the .orig files, from the patch. :-)
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to invest in a proper ZIL device.
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chris Forgeron
Sent: December-31-10 6:01 PM
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: ZFS v28 and zil_disable
BTW, I'm noticing the removal of vfs.zfs.zil_disable as well - It's not
listed as a sysctl when I check vfs.zfs, but I see it's still in the source
code;
In usr/src/sys/cddl/ :
# grep -r zil_disable *
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/sys/zil.h.orig:extern int
zil_disable;
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:int zil_disable = 0;
/* disable intent logging */
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:TUNABLE_INT(vfs.zfs.zil_disable,
zil_disable);
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c.orig:SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs,
OID_AUTO, zil_disable, CTLFLAG_RW, zil_disable, 0,
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vfsops.c.orig: if
(zil_disable) {
cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zvol.c.orig: if
(bp-bio_cmd == BIO_FLUSH !zil_disable)
I know Sun was trying to move away from allowing people to disable the ZIL,
but was this by design in the FreeBSD port, or are we just missing some code
to link the sysctl up with the code to easily disable the ZIL?
I'll try setting zil_disable=1 in the source tomorrow and recompile to see if
it works. It's such a huge speed increase for some operations (80MB/sec with
ZIL, 450 MB/sec without ZIL) that I still use zil_disable.
I'll also have to check my 9.0-CUR v28 patch, although I assume it's the
same.
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Yves Avenard
Sent: December-27-10 1:31 AM
To: jhell
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New ZFSv28 patchset for 8-STABLE: Kernel Panic
Jean-Yves
PS: saving my 5MB files over the network , went from 40-55s with v15 to a
constant 16s with v28... I can't test with ZIL completely disabled , it seems
that vfs.zfs.zil_disable has been removed, and so did
vfs.zfs.write_limit_override
You shouldn't disable the ZIL[1], and you don't need a proper ZIL
device for the ZIL to work. FreeBSD ZFS, like its Solaris counterpart,
offers the ability for the ZIL to be associated with one or more
dedicated devices[1]. These are referred to as log devices (not to be
confused with cache devices).
In the case you use a dedicated device for your ZIL, be aware that you
should probably use two[2] devices (or if a single physical device, two
slices) else risk data integrity problems.
Switching over to a brief mention of cache devices, there is one
case[3] of someone experiencing high CPU when either a USB flash drive
or an SSD drive[4], where rebooting the system apparently solved the
problem (we do not know if this was the case permanently or
temporarily).
[1]:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Disabling_the_ZIL_.28Don.27t.29
[2]: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=18221
[3]: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-November/060014.html
[4]: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-November/060076.html
--
| Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: slow ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1
On 2010-Dec-31 15:47:47 -0800, Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote: Is your ZFS root filesystem associated with a pool that's mirrored or using raidzX? Currently, mirrored. I'm considering raidz1 at home. Note that my work system is a single pool, whereas I'll use a separate pool for root at home. What about mismatched /boot content (ZFS vs. UFS)? Can you give me an example of what you mean here. What about booting into single-user mode? I haven't run into any problems here, though I agree that starting ZFS in single-user mode is a lot messier than starting UFS. error/mistake). Is it worth the risk? Most administrators don't have the tolerance for stuff like that in the middle of a system upgrade or what not; they should be able to follow exactly what's in the handbook, to a tee. I've been using FreeBSD for long enough that I'm confident to upgrade or similar without blindly following a process. But I agree that FreeBSD should be usable without needing to be a guru. There's a link to www.dan.me.uk at the bottom of the above Wiki page that outlines the madness that's required to configure the setup, all of which has to be done by hand. I don't know many administrators who are going to tolerate this when deploying numerous machines, especially when compounded by the complexities mentioned above. Root on ZFS is still very bespoke. I agree there's no way you could roll it out across lots of machines at present but I'm happy to hand- craft installs on a few machines. Hopefully, son-of-sysinstall will support ZFS installs (one prerequisite is someone being willing to do the work). The mmap(2) and sendfile(2) complexities will bite an junior or mid-level SA in the butt too -- they won't know why software starts failing or behaving oddly (FreeBSD ftpd is a good example). It just so happens that Apache, out-of-the-box, comes with mmap and sendfile use disabled. mmap(2) is a design problem with ZFS - it's present on Solaris as well. IMHO, it's the biggest flaw in ZFS. The sendfile(2) issues haven't bitten me so I haven't studied them as much but I'm aware that some fixes were committed recently. Oh and one root-on-ZFS gotcha that I missed is the lack of gzip support. I spent about ½day tracking that down - not helped by the lack of any documentation or a useful error message (though there is a comment in the code when you eventually track it down). -- Peter Jeremy pgpObQwMbJjKU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Happy New Year!
Subj.) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
