On 05/05/16(Thu) 19:03, Pavan Maddamsetti wrote:
> I have been reading about ongoing improvements to SMP in OpenBSD. My
> understanding is that context switching from userspace to the kernel can be
> hazardous if shared resources are not protected by locking.
The context switching it not the
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:53:24AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2015-03-21, John E.P. Hynes j...@hytronix.com wrote:
If anyone has any ideas, or would like more info, or if a dev suspects
it could be the driver, contact me off-list and I can arrange to send
hardware if it helps.
It does the same thing on 5.3 through -current. I haven't put that box in the
rack yet so I can try a few older kernels too and see if any work.
Will report back.
On Mar 22, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:53:24AM +, Stuart
On 2015-03-21, John E.P. Hynes j...@hytronix.com wrote:
If anyone has any ideas, or would like more info, or if a dev suspects
it could be the driver, contact me off-list and I can arrange to send
hardware if it helps.
It might be worth talking to Supermicro.
Well, I discovered the issue - the few machines that work properly had a
different quad-port nic in them.
With certain BIOS settings, you can catch part of the kernel panic
before the screen goes crazy.
Codes that were visible depending on BIOS settings:
kernel: type 1994916275 trap, code=0
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Alfonso S. Siciliano alfi...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to study the concurrency and the parallelism of OpenBSD.
Fortunately SMP is supported on my platform, amd64.
Where can I find documentation about what components are been
parallelized? (queue,
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:03:40PM +0200, Alfonso S. Siciliano wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to study the concurrency and the parallelism of OpenBSD.
Fortunately SMP is supported on my platform, amd64.
Where can I find documentation about what components are been
parallelized? (queue, stack, etc.)
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:19:08 +0200
Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Since you do not tell us if you are interested in the kernel or
userland side of things, it is hard to point you to manual pages or
other documentation.
I have been too generic.
My interest is to find the differences
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Alfonso S. Siciliano wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:19:08 +0200
Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Since you do not tell us if you are interested in the kernel or
userland side of things, it is hard to point you to manual pages or
other
Alfonso S. Siciliano [alfi...@gmail.com] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to study the concurrency and the parallelism of OpenBSD.
Fortunately SMP is supported on my platform, amd64.
Where can I find documentation about what components are been
parallelized? (queue, stack, etc.)
No such documents
On 07/09/11 03:57, Maurice Janssen wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to somehow force a program to run on a single CPU in an
SMP system?
The reason I ask that on some SMP-capable architectures, I'm having some
problems with ntpd. On hppa and sgi, the clock won't sync because ntpd
sees replies
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 07:52:58AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
On 07/09/11 03:57, Maurice Janssen wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to somehow force a program to run on a single CPU in an
SMP system?
The reason I ask that on some SMP-capable architectures, I'm having some
problems with ntpd. On
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Maurice Janssen maur...@z74.net wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 07:52:58AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
On 07/09/11 03:57, Maurice Janssen wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to somehow force a program to run on a single CPU in an
SMP system?
The reason I ask that on some
right here: http://www.openbsd.org/hppa.html
thanks jsing kettenis and others that made SMP work on hppa!
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 01:48:35PM -0600, L. V. Lammert wrote:
Can't seem to find the SMP HCL results posted anywhere - does anyone have
a recommendation?
Lee
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Robert Yuri robert.yu...@gmail.com wrote:
what is the state of the smp support in openbsd ?
Better than yesterday, not as good as tomorrow
we'll degust improvements after the hackathon ?
If you want to know what happened during the hackathon, you should
1)
Thanks to everyone who took the time to weigh in on this. Perhaps most
useful to me are the comments of those who have used OpenBSD for heavy
database work (I intend to use Postgresql) and have gotten
satisfactory results.
To Daniel -- I don't think we'll be working for or with each other in
the
On 12/11/09 12:51 PM, Donald Allen wrote:
Thanks to everyone who took the time to weigh in on this. Perhaps most
useful to me are the comments of those who have used OpenBSD for heavy
database work (I intend to use Postgresql) and have gotten
satisfactory results.
Then using PostgreSQL should
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:56:57 -0500, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net
wrote:
Then using PostgreSQL should really work well for you then and you
wouldn't really need or benefit much from multicore kernel with the
giant lock removed as PostgreSQL is not and do not use threads anyway by
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Daniel Gracia Garallar
danie...@electronicagracia.com wrote:
It is true, and AFAIK, todays it's a topper nice task... almost 20.
Regards,
Dani
Donald Allen escribis:
IMHO I hope OpenBSD doesn't use locks at all in the future taking
FreeBSD's lesson, but
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:38:28AM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
My understanding is that OpenBSD still employs the Giant Lock approach
to SMP, serializing access to kernel services. Is this still true? If
yes
it is, do Theo and the other kernel developers consider it a priority
to improve
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:38:28AM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
My understanding is that OpenBSD still employs the Giant Lock approach
to SMP, serializing access to kernel services. Is this still true? If
yes
it is, do
Quoting Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com:
My understanding is that OpenBSD still employs the Giant Lock approach
to SMP, serializing access to kernel services. Is this still true? If
it is, do Theo and the other kernel developers consider it a priority
to improve this?
(I am NOT
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM, and...@msu.edu wrote:
Quoting Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com:
My understanding is that OpenBSD still employs the Giant Lock approach
to SMP, serializing access to kernel services. Is this still true? If
it is, do Theo and the other kernel developers
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly I agree with you that a blazingly fast but unstable and/or
insecure system isn't worth much in most, if any, settings. On the
other hand, a rock-solid, secure system that simply doesn't deliver
the
Of course people care. Any other answer is silly.
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 12:36:10PM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:38:28AM -0500, Donald Allen wrote:
My understanding is that OpenBSD still
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Brad Tilley b...@16systems.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly I agree with you that a blazingly fast but unstable and/or
insecure system isn't worth much in most, if any, settings. On the
other hand,
I don't, and many times we don't have the luxury of having such
examples or data. I'm in a different kind of real-world situation: I'm
setting up a database server on a 4-core machine that is going to
carry a heavy load -- it's performance will be critical to the success
of the project -- and I
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:13:15 -0500
Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Brad Tilley b...@16systems.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Donald Allen
donaldcal...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly I agree with you that a blazingly fast but unstable
On 22:56, Wed 09 Dec 09, Robert wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:13:15 -0500
Donald Allen donaldcal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Brad Tilley b...@16systems.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Donald Allen
donaldcal...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly I agree
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote:
So, what's heavy for you may be just simple routine for others and no, I do
not miss the fine lock either yet anyway. Would be nice, but really, I
haven't run into it's need for me anyway yet.
That's true for me as
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:07:02 +0100
Michiel van Baak mich...@vanbaak.info wrote:
On 22:56, Wed 09 Dec 09, Robert wrote:
Just last month i have seen a database server being upgraded from
32GB to 256GB of RAM because that was easier (to justify) for them
than to fix their horrible db layout.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Brad Tilley b...@16systems.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote:
So, what's heavy for you may be just simple routine for others and no, I do
not miss the fine lock either yet anyway. Would be nice, but really, I
Soo... Your performance requirements may met by OpenBSD despite it's
current poor SMP support - other OSes will scale on SMP. Trade-offs,
trade-offs... It's a psychological issue. We have all this multicore
hardware that doesn't get taken advantage of by this OS, and it's
always in the backs
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:46:25 -0700
Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Soo... Your performance requirements may met by OpenBSD despite it's
current poor SMP support - other OSes will scale on SMP. Trade-offs,
trade-offs... It's a psychological issue. We have all this multicore
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Soo... Your performance requirements may met by OpenBSD despite it's
current poor SMP support - other OSes will scale on SMP. Trade-offs,
trade-offs... It's a psychological issue. We have all this multicore
hardware
It is true, and AFAIK, todays it's a topper nice task... almost 20.
Regards,
Dani
Donald Allen escribis:
My understanding is that OpenBSD still employs the Giant Lock approach
to SMP, serializing access to kernel services. Is this still true? If
it is, do Theo and the other kernel developers
hi,
is that possible to put all kernel (ip related ) tasks to cpu[0] and
all other userland task to rest of cpus ?
i viewed quickly but my knowledge very limited on this
regards
Zafer
-bb---
10.Ara.2009 tarihinde 02:05 saatinde, Robert rob...@openbsd.pap.st
E unlarD1 yazdD1:
On
Hello Daniel,
Just want to make sure that we are on the same page: I'm talking about
i386. It seems from below that your concern is more about amd64, but I
didn't really try it, because my CPU isn't even a Xeon.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 6:00:16 PM, you wrote:
I have pretty
Boris Goldberg wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Just want to make sure that we are on the same page: I'm talking about
i386. It seems from below that your concern is more about amd64, but I
didn't really try it, because my CPU isn't even a Xeon.
You are 100% right. An oversight on my part here.
Hello Daniel,
Monday, September 17, 2007, 3:14:05 PM, you wrote:
DO Now that is working do me a favor and try to compile the userland and
DO kernel with that bsd.mp acpi enable kernel.
DO Also, try if possible to make transfer of huge files between two boxes
DO well connected to try to at a
Boris Goldberg wrote:
I have pretty much the same picture with HP ProLiant 320 G5 (Dual Core
Pentium-D 925). The server is new and passes all tests from the HP
maintenance CD.
I couldn't make what BIOS version you were actually running there, but
you did check to make sure you
On 2007/09/19 19:00, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Le me know how it goes with current, I am curious as so far all feedback I
got is no one yet can get an AMD64.mp stable at this time
this must be hardware-dependent, my main desktop is amd64 MP
(opteron 175 i.e. dual-core) and gives no trouble on
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/09/19 19:00, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Le me know how it goes with current, I am curious as so far all feedback I
got is no one yet can get an AMD64.mp stable at this time
this must be hardware-dependent, my main desktop is amd64 MP
(opteron 175 i.e. dual-core) and
load averages: 0.30, 0.08, 0.03
05:22:12
15 processes: 14 idle, 1 on processor
CPU0 states: 0.3% user, 0.0% nice, 0.7% system, 0.1% interrupt, 98.9%
idle
CPU1 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.9%
idle
CPU2 states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system,
On 9/16/07, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Taulborg wrote:
I appologize for not including this, here is the dmesg of a successful
boot of the amd 4.2 DEFAULT kernel:
Paul,
Not sure all the tests you did, but first do not run AMD64 on Intel
processor. I would do this first
Paul Taulborg wrote:
Booya! Updated my BIOS to the latest version (44), and applied the patch
that was kindly provided to me here:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=118975639013313w=2
I also enabled acpi0 in the kernel by default (required to see the other
processors), and tada!
I had to
Also Paul,
Now that is working do me a favor and try to compile the userland and
kernel with that bsd.mp acpi enable kernel.
Also, try if possible to make transfer of huge files between two boxes
well connected to try to at a minimum get close to 100Mb/sec of
transfer, or more if you have
I appologize for not including this, here is the dmesg of a successful
boot of the amd 4.2 DEFAULT kernel:
OpenBSD 4.2-current (GENERIC) #1191: Thu Sep 13 14:19:37 MDT 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC
real mem = 2142949376 (2043MB)
avail mem = 2069811200
Paul Taulborg wrote:
I appologize for not including this, here is the dmesg of a successful
boot of the amd 4.2 DEFAULT kernel:
Paul,
Not sure all the tests you did, but first do not run AMD64 on Intel
processor. I would do this first thing if you haven't done already.
- Go into BIOS and
Hi Daniel,
Kind of bummer, as I will be losing 64 bit support by use i386. This is an
Intel Xeon, which should be compatible with the amd64 branch.
In any case; when attempting to run the i386 bsd.mp it hangs here:
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support
It's a hard freeze-up, the keyboard will not
Update:
I ran boot -c with verbose on, and here are the last entries:
various probing failed messages (doesn't look like any problems), then:
ioapic0: conflicting map entries for pin 0
pctr: 686-class user-level performance counters enabled
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR Support
hard hang -- no further
Paul Taulborg wrote:
Kind of bummer, as I will be losing 64 bit support by use i386. This is
an Intel Xeon, which should be compatible with the amd64 branch.
I am not expert to say yes or no here. May be someone else will confirm
or deny. For now I would assume wrongly may be, but I wouldn't
Paul Taulborg wrote:
Update:
I ran boot -c with verbose on, and here are the last entries:
various probing failed messages (doesn't look like any problems), then:
ioapic0: conflicting map entries for pin 0
pctr: 686-class user-level performance counters enabled
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR Support
i386 GENERIC works, and boots up normally.
i386 SMP (bsd.mp) hangs at the line below (and additional lines in my
other message).
I have to hard power the machine down at this hang (i386 SMP kernel).
This same exact thing occurs with both 4.1 and current (just downloaded
the current today).
Paul Taulborg wrote:
Kind of bummer, as I will be losing 64 bit support by use i386. This is
an Intel Xeon, which should be compatible with the amd64 branch.
To answer your question, I guess it depend on the version of your processor.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=117112049507303w=2
I
Paul,
If you want to try the AMD64 mp kernel with the patch I point out to you
on tech of a few days ago and see if that help you or not, I can make
the kernel I built that night for you to download and try if you trust
it. I would say to built your own, but if you want to do a quick test
Paul Taulborg wrote:
I went through every option in the BIOS, and there is nothing at all
related to ACPI. :(
Your BIOS is version 35, and there is a very long list of BIOS upgrades
from Intel. The latest one for this board, if I am not mistaken is 44
and you have 35.
bios0: vendor Intel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cyrus
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:24 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: SMP
Im currently running openbsd 4.1 on my server, Proliant 8500. This
server
is SMP with 4x 700MHz PIII proc. Im
Cyrus wrote:
Im currently running openbsd 4.1 on my server, Proliant 8500. This server
is SMP with 4x 700MHz PIII proc. Im just wondering, is it using all four
cpu's? or do I have to configure the system to utilize SMP?
P.S. I did show my appreciation, and I bought a CD!
Thank you,
On 9/13/07, Cyrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im currently running openbsd 4.1 on my server, Proliant 8500. This server
is SMP with 4x 700MHz PIII proc. Im just wondering, is it using all four
cpu's? or do I have to configure the system to utilize SMP?
SMP is the kernel that supports multiple
On 9/14/07, Cyrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im currently running openbsd 4.1 on my server, Proliant 8500. This server
is SMP with 4x 700MHz PIII proc. Im just wondering, is it using all four
cpu's? or do I have to configure the system to utilize SMP?
[snip]
You will have to use the bsd,mp
On 9/13/07, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/07, Cyrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im currently running openbsd 4.1 on my server, Proliant 8500. This server
is SMP with 4x 700MHz PIII proc. Im just wondering, is it using all four
cpu's? or do I have to configure the system to
Jon Steel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I forgot to add:
In the log of pmap.c I found
revision 1.97
date: 2007/02/20 21:15:01; author: tom; state: Exp; lines: +204 -500
Revert PAE pmap for now, until the strange bug is found. This stops
the freezes many of us are seeing (especially on
Then after about an hour, when you try and reboot, I get an error:
uvm_fault(0x..., 0x..., 0, 1) - e
kernel: page fault trap, code = 0
stopped at pmap_page_remove_86+0x114:
0(%eax, %edx, 4), %eax
I suspect that I may be experiencing the same problem. I have a brand new
Lenovo
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 at 16:48 -0400, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
I suspect that I may be experiencing the same problem.
After talking with Art, we've decided that I'm probably experiencing a
problem with the ath driver, and not the SMP uvm_fault bug. My problem
disappears when I boot -c and disable
Hi
Ive finally got the current version running and the problem below has
disappeared. I was wondering however if the problem has actually been
solved.
The line of code that Im crashing on is line 3005 of pmap.c in version 4.0:
3005if (pve-pv_ptp (PDE(pve-pv_pmap,
3006
I forgot to add:
In the log of pmap.c I found
revision 1.97
date: 2007/02/20 21:15:01; author: tom; state: Exp; lines: +204 -500
Revert PAE pmap for now, until the strange bug is found. This stops
the freezes many of us are seeing (especially on amd64 machines running
OpenBSD/i386).
Much
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Can you try this with -current?
I tried with current but it froze on bootup after loading the Intel
MTRR. Vijay is having the same problem though and he said that current
did not solve the problem.
Im very suspicious of the following piece of code in
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
Hi everybody,
this may be a really stupid question but I'm going to ask it anyway since I
didn't find anything using Google or in the archives.
I was looking at
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#SMP
I'm wondering if there are any disadvantages if I run a
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
this may be a really stupid question but I'm going to ask it anyway since I
didn't find anything using Google or in the archives.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscw=2r=1s=smpq=b
Gives me 264 instance of smp.
One of the most noticeable difference, not that
Hi there too,
I am having the exact same error, buy my ichiic0 is Intel 82801FB SMBus
and i have only one processor. Note that my kernel is GENERIC, not
GENERIC.MP .
I've also tried disabling hyperthreading at the bios, but the errors still
show up.
Regards,
Marcos Laufer
Oh, here is my dmesg
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 08:32:00AM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote:
Dear folks,
some time ago, i posted a message asking about SMP support in openbsd.
I wondered what was the state-of-art algorithm for massive parallel
performance and the one openbsd picked.
Sorry, but i turn to this subject
i've had ufs2 done (well, the kernel part) on my laptop for almost six
months now :) most of it is in, although, as joachim pointed you to,
some essential parts had to be backed out cause compatibility with old
tools was broken, which is just not acceptable in openbsd.
and that was totally my
Hi!
There was another thread about SMP, OpenBSD does not support
HypeThreading :/ Bad, too bad :( Intel's HT is very powerfull thing :)
Bill Jones wrote:
Did anyone ever help you or did you figure it out yet?
I am having the same problem and would like to stay with OpenBSD and not move
it
* edgarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-15 08:12]:
There was another thread about SMP, OpenBSD does not support
HypeThreading :/ Bad, too bad :( Intel's HT is very powerfull thing :)
OpenBSD does support HT, at least on machines with a proper MPBIOS.
and indeed I have a dual xeon here that
Hi!
Thats interesting.
May be you can say where is a problem in my case, i posted message some
days ago?
Henning Brauer wrote:
* edgarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-15 08:12]:
There was another thread about SMP, OpenBSD does not support
HypeThreading :/ Bad, too bad :( Intel's HT is very
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:03:10 +0300 edgarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
There was another thread about SMP, OpenBSD does not support
HypeThreading
Yes, it does.
Intel's HT is very powerfull thing :)
No, its not. As you yourself stated, it is HypeThreading. It may be
a good demonstration
Have you tried disabling Hyperthreading in BIOS and seeing if you
continue to get this message? From what I've read, hyperthreading
tends to lower performance on the BSDs anyway.
On 6/15/06, Edgars [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Thats interesting.
May be you can say where is a problem in my
What are you trying to accomplish?
AFAIK, HTT is not supported in OpenBSD.
So re-enable it in BIOS - OS will ignore it anyway.
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 06:01, Jesse Gumm wrote:
Hello,
I'm booting a Dual Xeon 2.4 Machine (just got it a few days ago), and having
a bit of difficulty discerning
I'd like to know if the 2nd CPU is being used. I'm confused because
of the lack of Flags on cpu1 while cpu0 is loaded with them. It looks
like the 2nd CPU is actually a virtual CPU via Hyperthreading.
If you look at the dmesg I posted, and compare the top with this dmesg
(
After doing more research, I've concluded that the 2nd cpu is indeed
running properly, but I still don't know why exactly the bit flags are
different for the 2nd as for the 1st. That's a mystery.
But reading information on APIC IDs on Intel's site yielded some
answers
* Gustavo Rios wrote:
Dear friends,
i have been having an increasing interest on OpenBSD internals. So, my
first movement was to buy some Unix books on OS design like The Design
of the 4.4BSD .
One thing i would like to know better is about SMP. Up to now i could
not figure it out
David B. wrote:
Hi,
are there any plans to release a bsd.mp version for sparc64? My box
currently can only use cpu0; I have 4 processors, and it seems a shame
to waste all of that power.
thanks
There is, of course, desire to support SMP on mvme88k, sparc, sparc64,
Alpha, and just about
On 2006/04/06 04:19, RJ45 wrote:
when I boot the SMP OpenBSD kernel with pentium D
the machine goes in kernel dump.
I did nto report details right now.
Why not? Follow http://www.openbsd.org/report.html, it's easy.
(Redirecting to misc@, since I think the smp@ list is mostly dead.)
Marco Derix wrote:
I'm running the latest bios from HP/Compaq available for my system
(Compaq Proliant 800 (P2) V4.08a dated 4/19/2000). I also tried the
system configuration utility, but there was nothing I could configure
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:39:58 -0500, Steve Shockley wrote
(Redirecting to misc@, since I think the smp@ list is mostly
dead.)
Marco Derix wrote:
I'm running the latest bios from HP/Compaq available for my system
(Compaq Proliant 800 (P2) V4.08a dated 4/19/2000). I also tried the
system
On Sunday, February 26, Sgt. Stedenko wrote:
Is there a way to tell a process to switch which processor it's using in the
SMP version of the obsd 3.8 system?
Short of using the primary cpu with a UP kernel, no.
Also, have there been any efforts into Ethernet device polling in the bge
On Sunday, February 26, Sgt. Stedenko wrote:
I had already seen that one and didn't find it to be any help. Thanks
anyways though for taking the time. The author offers a solution but no
explanation. I've tuned many sysctl's and experimented with the mtu's,
changing from autoselect to
On 2006.02.27, at 1:45 PM, Sgt. Stedenko wrote:
Also, have there been any efforts into Ethernet device polling in
the bge
drivers? On a gigabit network the interrupts are eating a large
portion of
the cpu0 and thought it might help the situation.
, February 26, 2006 10:46 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: SMP process control
On 2006.02.27, at 1:45 PM, Sgt. Stedenko wrote:
Also, have there been any efforts into Ethernet device polling in
the bge
drivers? On a gigabit network the interrupts are eating a large
portion of
the cpu0
Ok, thank you.
-Sarge
-Original Message-
From: Theo de Raadt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:33 PM
To: Sgt. Stedenko
Subject: Re: SMP process control
It's not a performance issue, when your machine runs out of oomph to
bridge.
There seems to be something
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:06:08PM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote:
I was wondering what is the state of art in SMP technologies ?
I would like to know how close is OpenBSD to it?
Thanks in advance.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#SMP
Jonathan
--
| /\ ASCII Ribbon | Jonathan Glaschke -
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:06:08 -0300
Gustavo Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what is the state of art in SMP technologies ?
I would like to know how close is OpenBSD to it?
http://openbsd.org/smp.html
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Jasper
--
Humppa is a serious thing!
[demime
On Tuesday, February 21, Gustavo Rios wrote:
I was wondering what is the state of art in SMP technologies ?
The state of art in SMP tech is this misc@ list. Seriously, think
about it. You've just made (and me too!) thousands of cpu's burn
some useless energy in processing your question. How
94 matches
Mail list logo
