Re: [OmniOS-discuss] Bloody // mailwrapper & mta mediator

> Dale Ghent > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:56 PM > > Well "do nothing" has been the apparent course of action for almost 6 years > now. But that's speaking in general illumos-gate terms. As far as OmniOS > goes, we can completely ignore that part of the tree and install our own thing > in

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] Bloody // mailwrapper & mta mediator

> Sure, generally speaking. In this particular context I believe users > should ship their own if they want to deploy a mail server, but > all nodes should be able to deliver mail locally. It would also be > great if the default install lended itself to mail submission (eg. > a satellite mailer

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] SMB 2.1 any many other improvements

A big drop like this likely will not be backported. It will appear in probably the second update to this bloody cycle, since the first drop is already frozen. R151018 will be the first stable release to contain this. Dan Sent from my iPhone (typos, autocorrect, and all) > On Nov 6, 2015, at

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

On 05/11/2015 14:57, Dan McDonald wrote: On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Al Slater wrote: I have the 4Gb core file. Is there anything useful I can extract from it to try and spot where the problem is? Your one ::findleaks showed nothing. Did your 4GB corefile have

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 3:11 AM, Al Slater wrote: > > On 05/11/2015 14:57, Dan McDonald wrote: >> >>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Al Slater wrote: >>> >>> I have the 4Gb core file. Is there anything useful I can extract from >>> it to try and spot

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Dan McDonald wrote: > > Lots of LARGE anonymous mappings. I wonder why that happened? I'll dig into > that a bit more. pmap(1) works even better on running processes. Could you run, say "pmap -xa `pgrep ilbd`" on your running machine? Dan

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

On 06/11/15 14:51, Dan McDonald wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Dan McDonald wrote: >> >> Lots of LARGE anonymous mappings. I wonder why that happened? I'll dig into >> that a bit more. > > pmap(1) works even better on running processes. Could you run, say "pmap

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Al Slater wrote: > > > 7D80 1048576 1048576 1048576 - rwx--[ anon ] > BDA0 524288 524288 524288 - rwx--[ anon ] > DDC0 262144 262144 262144 - rwx--[ anon ] > EDE0 131072 131072 131072

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Dan McDonald wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Al Slater wrote: >> >> >> 7D80 1048576 1048576 1048576 - rwx--[ anon ] >> BDA0 524288 524288 524288 - rwx--[ anon ] >> DDC0 262144

Re: [OmniOS-discuss] ILB memory leak?

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Dan McDonald wrote: More huge anonymous mappings (1G, 512MB, 256MB, 128MB). I don't know pmap as well as I should. I don't see anything in the man page to give me further insight into why these chunks of memory are being eaten. It is pretty common for memory allocators

[OmniOS-discuss] SMB 2.1 any many other improvements

Just saw the notice at Illumos IRC Long awaited (Gordon Ross from Nexenta, gratulation, among others) SMB 2.1 is there - my Mac users will be happy https://www.illumos.org/issues/6399 https://www.illumos.org/issues/6398 https://www.illumos.org/issues/6352 https://www.illumos.org/issues/6400