Re: FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Unexplained power off
Hello everyone! I want to thank all of you for ideas and support! Finally I've resolved this annoying problem with "Unexplained power off". Right were those who supposed hardware problem. I've replaced PSU, and everything is OK - system is stable under any load... Android Andrew [:] wrote: Thank you for answers! Yesterday the last iteration of high load testing finished with just another power off. There are two ways of problem-solving have been outlined in this thread. One way - hardware problem, e.g. PSU. Another way - software, e.g. APM/ACPI problem. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
non critical mounts
Failing NFS mounts with the -b option take a lot of time, because they fork AFTER an attempt has failed. And that normally takes a lot of time. So I have written that patch, which fixes the behaviour by forking even before the first attempt is made. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=103089 But now I wonder weather it wouldn't be better to introduce an option like nocrit for non critical mounts in sbin/mount that generally forks mounts with that option into the background. It would be useful for all kinds of replaceable drives and network shares. Especially in an ever changing environment such as a Laptop. Now why not amd you say, the answer being that it costs significant CPU time when using such a mount. That does not matter on an optical drive, but when you want to build the world on an external HD, it makes a difference. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: check if file system is clean ...
On Sep 10, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: I checked both fsck and fsck_ffs man page, and don't see anything in either ... is there some way I can check if a file system is actually 'clean', without running fsck? run dump? not sure how picky that is.
Re: Patch for GBDE rc-script
On 12:34 Sun 10 Sep, Tobias Roth wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Daniel Bond wrote: > > On 14:13 Fri 08 Sep, Tobias Roth wrote: > > > > > > How is this better/different from just adding the gbde device to > > > /etc/fstab and have it mounted along with all other filesystems? > > > > > It says in the handbook: > > > > "Since encrypted file systems cannot yet be listed in /etc/fstab for > > automatic > > mounting, the file systems must be checked for errors by running fsck(8) > > manually before mounting." > > Interesting. I have had this line in my /etc/fstab for almost a year > now and it just works(tm): > > /dev/ad0s4d.bde /home ufs rw2 2 > > Since during startup, gbde is run before fsck, I don't see why there would > be any problems with this. > > Thanks, > Tobias Maybee this should be updated in the handbook then? (Along with the placement for the lockfile, since GBDE defaultly looks in /etc/.lock (not: /etc/gbde/)) I could do it if I knew how. -- Med vennlig hilsen / Best regards, -- Daniel Bond PGP: C822C4BD -- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Still possible to directly boot without loader?
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:10:26PM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: > I just tried to load my standard kernel from the boot blocks (instead > of using loader(8)), but I either get a hang before the kernel prints > anything, or a BTX halted. Is this still supposed to work in 6- > stable, or has it finally disappeared? You may be able to get this to work, but it is unsupported. -- Brooks pgpKJ9Yg3wrWp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Patch for GBDE rc-script
Daniel Bond wrote: > Maybee this should be updated in the handbook then? (Along with the placement > for the lockfile, since GBDE defaultly looks in /etc/.lock (not: > /etc/gbde/)) > > I could do it if I knew how. You don't have to know docbook to contribute to the docs. You can write up your suggested changes in plain english, and submit a PR. The doc committers are usually pretty good about handling the docbook stuff for you, especially if it's a minor change to existing text. >From what you've said here, it sounds like this would be a welcome addition, thanks for looking into it. :) hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
DNS query performance
I would like to discuss a little bit more about UDP performance. I've
made some tests and the results may have some value here.
In this test is easy to see that there is something different in the
FreeBSD 6 branch.
I made a benchmark with bind 9.3.2 (without threads support) and nsd
3.0.1 (1 server forked) on a HP Proliant Dual AMD Opteron 2.4GHz among
FreeBSD 4.11, 6.1 and Linux kernel 2.6.15, all of them for i386
systems. I used this simple zone file:
# cat db.FOO.BAR
$TTL 86400
@ 172800 in soa foo.dns.bar. hostmaster.foo.bar. (
2006090601 ;serial
1800;refresh 30 minutos
900 ;retry 15 minutos
604800 ;expire 7 dias
900 ) ;negative caching 15 minutos
172800 in ns foo.dns.bar.
; zone delegation begin
test1 IN NS qq1.bsd.
test2 IN NS qq2.bsd.
test3 IN NS qq3.bsd.
test4 IN NS qq4.bsd.
test5 IN NS qq5.bsd.
test6 IN NS qq6.bsd.
test7 IN NS qq7.bsd.
test8 IN NS qq8.bsd.
test9 IN NS qq9.bsd.
In another box with the same hardware I used FreeBSD 4.11 and
queryperf (DNS Query Performance Testing Tool) as a client to realize
1.000.000 of NS queries on the servers. Below I show the results:
queries per second
OS Bind 9.3.2 NSD 3.0.1
Linux 2.6 SMP 3884559645
FreeBSD 4.11 SMP 3497759417
FreeBSD 4.11 UP3392659547
FreeBSD 6.1 SMP1495315908
FreeBSD 6.1 UP 1551614752
Comments:
Linux had a performance just 10% better than FreeBSD 4.11 with
bind. With nsd I didn't see any difference between them. There is no
difference also tweaking the kernel from UP to SMP.
With nsd the performance was improved to ~60k queries per second on
4.11 and Linux, i.e., it was almost doubled comparing with bind. I
couldn't see any packet loss in any case.
On the other hand, on FreeBSD 6.1 the result was lower than half of
bind's performance on the others systems tested. And with nsd the
result didn't get better (unlike happend on FreeBSD 4.11). I also got
some 'timeout' on FreeBSD 6.1 - about 200 from 1M packets were lost.
In actual fact, I think that is important to emphasize that the same
limit was reached on both name servers - no more than ~15k queries per
second was possible on 6.1. I think there is an issue on the system,
not on bind neither nsd.
Besides this, I've noticed some problems with bge interface
driver. Many times the interface is up and running and suddenly goes
down, without any reason, or after a reboot it doesn't go up. And if
you just remove and insert again the cable, everything returns to
work. On up-to-date FreeBSD 6 boxes I don't see this problem so often,
but with 'netstat -i' it's possible to find some input errors - I was
used to see no errors on 4.11 and others.
Does anybody noticed this behavior?
For my purpose, the UDP performance is very important. I would be glad
with any kind of help to tune my box and improve its performance.
For those who wants to try, the queryperf can be found in the bind
source tree, at bind-9.3.2/contrib/queryperf. I used a query load file
like this (1M of lines making reference to the zones in db.FOO.BAR):
# cat query.txt
test1.foo.bar NS
test7.foo.bar NS
test8.foo.bar NS
test9.foo.bar NS
test2.foo.bar NS
...
Cheers,
Marcelo Gardini
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
