Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli wrote: Is this normal in your experience? Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. bye & Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
C++11 not working anymore with clang 3.2
Hello there, I've installed the c++ (libc++ library) like this : make -C /usr/src/lib/libcxxrt all install make CXX=clang -C /usr/src/lib/libc++ all install Then, I was able to compile with clang++ using -std=c++11 -stdlib=libc++. And now, after the clang-3.2 update I can't build anymore, I get this error: /usr/local/bin/ld: CMakeFiles/irccd.dir/Irccd.cpp.o: undefined reference to symbol '__cxa_free_exception@@CXXABI_1.3' /usr/local/bin/ld: note: '__cxa_free_exception@@CXXABI_1.3' is defined in DSO //lib/libcxxrt.so.1 so try adding it to the linker command line //lib/libcxxrt.so.1: could not read symbols: Invalid operation clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation) *** [irccd/irccd] Error code 1 I've also tried recompiling libc++ and libcxxrt with the last clang++ but it didn't help. Regards, ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9.1 won't boot after install
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 19:43:02 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block wrote: >> I booted the 9.1 install CD, executed "gpart destroy -F ada0", and >> installed. After completing the install, boot fails with: >> >> ERROR: No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. >That is a BIOS error, probably due to UEFI expecting a certain disk >layout when it finds GPT. Does this mean GPT is not supported by this system? I thought GPT is supposed to replace MBR and UEFI is the future. Perhaps there is something in UEFI that can be tweaked to make it work with GPT? -Simon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD 9.1 won't boot after install
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Simon wrote: On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 19:43:02 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block wrote: I booted the 9.1 install CD, executed "gpart destroy -F ada0", and installed. After completing the install, boot fails with: ERROR: No boot disk has been detected or the disk has failed. That is a BIOS error, probably due to UEFI expecting a certain disk layout when it finds GPT. Does this mean GPT is not supported by this system? Kind of the opposite: UEFI expects GPT, but also expects a particular set of partitions. And then there's the SecureBoot situation. I thought GPT is supposed to replace MBR and UEFI is the future. Perhaps there is something in UEFI that can be tweaked to make it work with GPT? Yes. There should be some sort of legacy boot. In UEFI mode, SecureBoot can be disabled, so with the correct partition layout FreeBSD should boot even in UEFI (untested, I do not yet have a UEFI system). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Is this a memory error?
Is this message indicating I have a memory error? I'm seeing this message across two systems, one below: FreeBSD mc 9.1-STABLE FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE #0 r252678: Thu Jul 4 03:47:52 PDT 2013 root@mc:/usr/obj/disk-1/src/sys/SMUNI amd64 Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Bank 2, Status 0x981a400c0176 Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Global Cap 0x0107, Status 0x Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Vendor "AuthenticAMD", ID 0x600f12, APIC ID 72 Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: CPU 24 COR DCACHE L2 EVICT error Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Misc 0x0 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Touch screen support in 9 Release
Hello, My employer is going to replace my aging laptop soon. We've always used Macs at work but I'd kinda like to get back to FreeBSD. His criteria are Windows 8 and a touch screen, mine is decent FreeBSD support. So, what is the state of support for touch screens at the moment? Most if the information I can find is from four or five years ago, and I can't seem to find out what's going on now. And, any recommendations for a machine? I'd be using it primarily for web development. Thanks for your help, Ben ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is this a memory error?
Dennis Glatting pki2.com> writes: > > Is this message indicating I have a memory error? I'm seeing this > message across two systems, one below: > > FreeBSD mc 9.1-STABLE FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE #0 r252678: Thu Jul 4 03:47:52 > PDT 2013 root mc:/usr/obj/disk-1/src/sys/SMUNI amd64 > > Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Bank 2, Status 0x981a400c0176 > Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Global Cap 0x0107, Status > 0x > Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Vendor "AuthenticAMD", ID 0x600f12, APIC > ID 72 > Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: CPU 24 COR DCACHE L2 EVICT error > Jul 4 15:11:10 mc kernel: MCA: Misc 0x0 Google search: kernel: MCA: Bank , Status DCACHE L2 EVICT error http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-August/220060.html http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=24447 jb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
SV: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
Smb is slow by design compared to nfs. /Leslie Skickat från min Samsung Mobil Originalmeddelande Från: Andrea Venturoli Datum: Till: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Rubrik: Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: > On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > >> Is this normal in your experience? > > Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? > > If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major > factor. Yesterday I did four test: _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. Today I tried again in reverse order: _ NFS find took 3 minutes; _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. bye & Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote: > On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: > > On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > >> Is this normal in your experience? > > > > Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? > > > > If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a > > major factor. > > Yesterday I did four test: > _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; > _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; > _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; > _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. > > > Today I tried again in reverse order: > _ NFS find took 3 minutes; > _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; > _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; > _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. > > So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. > The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might > not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just > too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. > the problem may be high log level for Samba You should read this http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
install on external hdd
Hello everyone, I am new in FreeBSD. I want to install from DVD FreeBSD on an external hdd and I get an error when running the program partitioning. When I press alt + ctrl + F3, last lines: rm: /tmp/bsdinstall_etc/fstab: No such file or directory Running installation step: autopart Segmentation fault Running installation step: umount I found on Google about bsdinstall segfault without disks. Then I reboot computer, disconnected the hdd and connected it immediately after starting bsdinstall, that's what I brought: usb_alloc_device: set address 2 failed (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored) usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed, USB_ERR_STALLED usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored) usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed, USB_ERR_STALLED usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored) usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed, USB_ERR_STALLED ugen1.2: at usbus1 (disconnected) uhub_reattach_port: could not allocate new device As I understand it, my external hdd is not mounted. Maybe it's because I have a hdd with usb 3.0, but my computer does not have usb 3.0. Please, help. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: install on external hdd
Your research is correct so far.
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 00:18:11 +0400, Nazar Kazakov wrote:
> I found on Google about bsdinstall segfault without disks.
> Then I reboot computer, disconnected the hdd and connected
> it immediately after starting bsdinstall, that's what I brought:
>
> usb_alloc_device: set address 2 failed (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored)
> usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed,
> USB_ERR_STALLED
> usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored)
> usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed,
> USB_ERR_STALLED
> usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored)
> usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed,
> USB_ERR_STALLED
> ugen1.2: at usbus1 (disconnected)
> uhub_reattach_port: could not allocate new device
It should not matter when the disk is attached; bsdinstall
will operate on any disk recognized by the system, no matter
if detected at program runtime or system boot.
> As I understand it, my external hdd is not mounted.
The disk is not _recognized_. Only a file system can be
mounted (which requires the disk to be recognized). For
a USB disk, from the /dev/ugenX.Y device a /dev/daX device
will be "generated", corresponding to the disk. The process
you've shown above does not even reach that step.
If you go to the shell, you can enter "dmesg" to see the
last messages that will be the same. You can also check
the content of /dev regarding daX devices ("ls /dev/da*")
or use "camcontrol devlist" to check if they are present.
> Maybe it's because I have a hdd with usb 3.0, but my computer
> does not have usb 3.0.
Yes, this looks like a typical "cannot connect" error.
Normally, a USB 3 disk would "switch down" to USB 2.
But USB 3 has a different current requirement, so it
could be possible that the power drain from the USB port
is insufficient for the disk to work properly. Can you
try to attach a separate power supply to the disk?
For USB 3, _all_ involved parts (disk, cable, ports,
controller, OS) need to be in "USB 3 mode", else it
probably won't work.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
install on external hdd
In dmesg repeats the old conclusion that I wrote, but in dmesg I found
information about five usbus and all except the last one (it has 2.0) written
usb 1.0. I tried to connect the hdd to last, but failed. Also about usbus
written that they are 2-port hub (probably built into the motherboard). In the
first four usbus is intel UHCI root HUB, at the last - intel EHCI root HUB
"ls / dev / da *" finds nothing
"camcontrol devlist" outputs only DVD RW
My hdd has an input for an external power supply, and it is already connected
to a second usb port.
07.07.2013, 00:37, "Polytropon" :
> Your research is correct so far.
>
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 00:18:11 +0400, Nazar Kazakov wrote:
>> I found on Google about bsdinstall segfault without disks.
>> Then I reboot computer, disconnected the hdd and connected
>> it immediately after starting bsdinstall, that's what I brought:
>>
>> usb_alloc_device: set address 2 failed (USB_ERR_STALLED, ignored)
>> usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed,
>> USB_ERR_STALLED
>> usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED,
>> ignored)
>> usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed,
>> USB_ERR_STALLED
>> usbd_req_re_enumerate: addr=2, set address failed! (USB_ERR_STALLED,
>> ignored)
>> usbd_setup_device_desc: getting device descriptor at addr 2 failed,
>> USB_ERR_STALLED
>> ugen1.2: at usbus1 (disconnected)
>> uhub_reattach_port: could not allocate new device
> It should not matter when the disk is attached; bsdinstall
> will operate on any disk recognized by the system, no matter
> if detected at program runtime or system boot.
>> As I understand it, my external hdd is not mounted.
> The disk is not _recognized_. Only a file system can be
> mounted (which requires the disk to be recognized). For
> a USB disk, from the /dev/ugenX.Y device a /dev/daX device
> will be "generated", corresponding to the disk. The process
> you've shown above does not even reach that step.
>
> If you go to the shell, you can enter "dmesg" to see the
> last messages that will be the same. You can also check
> the content of /dev regarding daX devices ("ls /dev/da*")
> or use "camcontrol devlist" to check if they are present.
>> Maybe it's because I have a hdd with usb 3.0, but my computer
>> does not have usb 3.0.
> Yes, this looks like a typical "cannot connect" error.
> Normally, a USB 3 disk would "switch down" to USB 2.
> But USB 3 has a different current requirement, so it
> could be possible that the power drain from the USB port
> is insufficient for the disk to work properly. Can you
> try to attach a separate power supply to the disk?
> For USB 3, _all_ involved parts (disk, cable, ports,
> controller, OS) need to be in "USB 3 mode", else it
> probably won't work.
>
> --
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: install on external hdd
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:15:48 +0400, Nazar Kazakov wrote: > In dmesg repeats the old conclusion that I wrote, but in dmesg > I found information about five usbus and all except the last > one (it has 2.0) written usb 1.0. > I tried to connect the hdd to last, but failed. Looks like a current issue. From WP: A unit load is defined as 100 mA in USB 2.0, and 150 mA in USB 3.0. A device may draw a maximum of 5 unit loads (500 mA) from a port in USB 2.0; 6 (900 mA) in USB 3.0. If the disk needs more than 500 mA to spin up and start properly, it won't work on a USB 2.0 port unless you use the external power supply. > Also about usbus written that they are 2-port hub (probably > built into the motherboard). In the first four usbus is intel > UHCI root HUB, at the last - intel EHCI root HUB That kind of combination can often be found. My older home PC also had this kind of configuration (Intel EHCI, VIA UHCI). > "ls / dev / da *" finds nothing > "camcontrol devlist" outputs only DVD RW This shows that the disk isn't recognized by the OS, therefore not usable in any disk-related operation. > My hdd has an input for an external power supply, and it is > already connected to a second usb port. Also check the USB cable. Sometimes a "partially defective" cable causes this kind of trouble. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Acer Laptop Bightness and Volume Hotkeys not working!
On 07/03/13 01:30, Mike C. wrote: > On 06/23/13 23:57, CeDeROM wrote: >> Hey :-) For my Dell laptop the backlight is controlled by hardware, >> unlike sound keys where you can assign them to use >> xf86audiovolumeup/down (or similar) to interact with mixer. I would >> search for automatic backlight hothey that would block manual control, >> or BIOS settings (like automatic backlight) or maybe new BIOS would >> fix that problem..? >> Best regards, >> Tomek >> >> -- >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >> > I don't hae any BIOS settings for this... I have the most recent version > of my bios but this Ultrabooks don't really have many options :) > I tried the xbrightness port, but no luck however I don't really understand the error: xbrightness 1.0 xbrightness: unable to open default display. Could this be related to the fact that I've built Xorg with: WITH_NEW_XORG=true WITH_KMS=true Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On 6 Jul 2013, at 21:34, Martin Alejandro Paredes Sanchez wrote: > On Saturday 06 July 2013 01:55:31 Andrea Venturoli wrote: >> On 07/05/13 20:42, Terje Elde wrote: >>> On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli wrote: Is this normal in your experience? >>> >>> Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first? >>> >>> If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a >>> major factor. >> >> Yesterday I did four test: >> _ SMB find resulting in over 10 minutes first time; >> _ SMB find resulting in nearly 10 minutes second time; >> _ NFS find resulting in a little over 1 minute first time; >> _ NFS find resulting in a little less than 1 minute second time. >> >> >> Today I tried again in reverse order: >> _ NFS find took 3 minutes; >> _ NFS find again took 21 seconds; >> _ SMB find took over 9 minutes; >> _ SMB find again took again over 9 minutes. >> >> So, while caching plays a role, it just isn't it. >> The server was possibly doing other things, so the above figures might >> not be that correct; however a difference in the magnitude order is just >> too big (and deterministic) to be considered random noise. > > the problem may be high log level for Samba > > You should read this > > http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/nfs-vs-cifs-aka-smb > Wow wow wow, their numbers with SMB seem super low. They claim to get 80Mb/s NFS vs 7Mb SMB. I'm getting 80-100Mbs with samba here with a core i3, 4gb of RAM and a 12tb raidz2 pool on GREEN drives, which are definitely not server grade (replacing them with WD reds, btw). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Possibly OT: NFS vs SMB performance
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > Hello. > > Sorry to ask here: maybe it's not the best place, but it might be a start > (the client and server are both FreeBSD). > > The server exports the same directory via NFS and via SMB. > > I'd expect some performance penalty when using SMB, but: > "find /nfs_mounted_dir >/dev/null" takes more or less 1 minute; > "find /smb_mounted_dir >/dev/null" takes nearly 10 minutes. > > Is this normal in your experience? > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-January/038903.html -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
