On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:26:25PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> You would help me if you could try to do the same with 2.2.18pre15aa1 on both
Jeff, don't waste time trying it because Jay Weber just fixed the bug.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:26:25PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
You would help me if you could try to do the same with 2.2.18pre15aa1 on both
Jeff, don't waste time trying it because Jay Weber just fixed the bug.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:20:14AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> No problem here, I always use 8192 r/w size :)
You would help me if you could try to do the same with 2.2.18pre15aa1 on both
client and server side nfsv3 using also files larger than 2G. Maybe the
problem with the bigger r/w size
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:54:50AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > I've tested 2.2.18pre15 (w/out 'aa1') against FreeBSD, Solaris, and
> > other Linux clients, and I'm very happy with the improvement over older
> > Linux NFS. All of my testing and real-life usage was done
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:54:50AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
> > > Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
> > > applied and some other stuff that we needed,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:23:51PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:14:32PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
> > > Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli
> > > patches
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
> > Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
> > applied and some other stuff that we needed, and the machines are stable
>
> I recommend using 2.2.18pre15aa1
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:14:32PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
> > Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli
> > patches applied and some other stuff that we needed, and the
> > machines are stable
>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
> Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
> applied and some other stuff that we needed, and the machines are stable
I recommend using 2.2.18pre15aa1 (without using nfsv3 in production for
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 04:48:55PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> if you aren't comfortable with dropping a lot of the 2.2.18preX stuff onto
> a production box, there is also the 2.2.18pre2aa2 kernel that andrea made
2.2.18pre2aa2 should be kind of rock solid (the only problem it has
as
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
applied and some other stuff that we needed, and the machines are stable
I recommend using 2.2.18pre15aa1 (without using
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:23:51PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:14:32PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli
patches applied and
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:54:50AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:47:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
applied and some other stuff that we needed, and the
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:54:50AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I've tested 2.2.18pre15 (w/out 'aa1') against FreeBSD, Solaris, and
other Linux clients, and I'm very happy with the improvement over older
Linux NFS. All of my testing and real-life usage was done w/
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:20:14AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
No problem here, I always use 8192 r/w size :)
You would help me if you could try to do the same with 2.2.18pre15aa1 on both
client and server side nfsv3 using also files larger than 2G. Maybe the
problem with the bigger r/w size
if you aren't comfortable with dropping a lot of the 2.2.18preX stuff onto
a production box, there is also the 2.2.18pre2aa2 kernel that andrea made
which has the VM stuff. check out andrea/proposed/v2.2/2.2.18pre2 or
andrea/kernels/v2.2/2.2.18pre2aa2
unless you've made substantial updates to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
> Our 3 machines went unresponsive, just the way you describe it. The error
> was the same. We had this on 2.2.17 and on 2.2.18pre3 , didn't try 2.2.18pre15.
> Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
> applied and
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Roy C. Bixler wrote:
> I just had our mail server running 2.2.18pre15 (compiled with GCC 2.7.2.3)
> go unresponcive yesterday. The console was flooded with
> 'do_try_to_free_pages failed' messages for various processes and had to be
> hard booted to the last stable kernel,
Krzysztof Sierota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> I recently changed the kernel from 2.2.15 to 2.2.17 and added new promise 100
> card. During 3 days 2 production servers crashed 4 times and had several
> lockups when there was zillion messages like
> VM: do_try_to_free_memmory failed for
Krzysztof Sierota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I recently changed the kernel from 2.2.15 to 2.2.17 and added new promise 100
card. During 3 days 2 production servers crashed 4 times and had several
lockups when there was zillion messages like
VM: do_try_to_free_memmory failed for XXX
Are
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Roy C. Bixler wrote:
I just had our mail server running 2.2.18pre15 (compiled with GCC 2.7.2.3)
go unresponcive yesterday. The console was flooded with
'do_try_to_free_pages failed' messages for various processes and had to be
hard booted to the last stable kernel, which
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Krzysztof Sierota wrote:
Our 3 machines went unresponsive, just the way you describe it. The error
was the same. We had this on 2.2.17 and on 2.2.18pre3 , didn't try 2.2.18pre15.
Marcelo Tosati assembled a kernel for us that had Andrea Arcangeli patches
applied and some
if you aren't comfortable with dropping a lot of the 2.2.18preX stuff onto
a production box, there is also the 2.2.18pre2aa2 kernel that andrea made
which has the VM stuff. check out andrea/proposed/v2.2/2.2.18pre2 or
andrea/kernels/v2.2/2.2.18pre2aa2
unless you've made substantial updates to
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 04:03:46PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The situation persists, we have had two crashes on those servers today.
> >
> > The machines are usually very heavily loaded, 5-50.
> >
> > Please help.
> > Are there any patches to fix this behaviour ?
>
> You might want to try
> The situation persists, we have had two crashes on those servers today.
>
> The machines are usually very heavily loaded, 5-50.
>
> Please help.
> Are there any patches to fix this behaviour ?
You might want to try Andrea Arcangeli's further vm patches
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
Hi,
I recently changed the kernel from 2.2.15 to 2.2.17 and added new promise 100
card. During 3 days 2 production servers crashed 4 times and had several
lockups when there was zillion messages like
VM: do_try_to_free_memmory failed for XXX
we then changed the kernel to 2.2.18pre3 + ide + raid
Hi,
I recently changed the kernel from 2.2.15 to 2.2.17 and added new promise 100
card. During 3 days 2 production servers crashed 4 times and had several
lockups when there was zillion messages like
VM: do_try_to_free_memmory failed for XXX
we then changed the kernel to 2.2.18pre3 + ide + raid
27 matches
Mail list logo
