On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Danny Braniss wrote:
Grr, there goes binary search theory out of the window,
So far I have managed to pinpoint the day that the changes affect the
throughput:
18/08/08 00:00:00 19/08/08 00:00:00
(I assume cvs's date is GMT).
now
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
An FYI: In the past couple of days, presumably as testing of 7.x becomes
more widespread, I've seen several reports of instability resulting from
ipfw credential rules. For those unfamiliar with them, these allow the
matching of packets in ipfw
On Mon, 29 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
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
be most helpful.
Thanks,
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
regards,
Robert Watson wrote:
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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
: 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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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
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
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
501 - 564 of 564 matches
Mail list logo
