Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Ganael LAPLANCHE]

Hi folks,

I am trying to use mmap(2) with a hint address. Unfortunately, this address
seems to be ignored and I never manage to get the desired one, while it
seems to be free.

Here is my code (the same code on NetBSD and GNU/Linux returns the hint
address) :

8< --- >8
#include 
#include 
#include 

/* mmap */
#include 

/* getpagesize */
#include 

/* round_page */
#include 

int main(void)
{
size_t map_size = getpagesize();

/* first call, ask for one page, with hint */
char *map_hint = (char*)round_page(512*1024*1024);
printf("=> calling mmap with hint = %p, size = %zu\n", map_hint,
map_size);
void *addr = mmap(map_hint, map_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE |
PROT_EXEC,
MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
if (addr == MAP_FAILED) {
printf("mmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
}
else {
printf("mmap succeeded:  addr = %p\n", addr);
#ifdef SLEEP
/* leave time to use 'procstat -v' */
sleep(10);
#endif
if(munmap(addr, map_size) != 0) {
printf("munmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
}
}

/* second call, one page, without hint */
map_hint = 0;
printf("=> calling mmap without hint, size = %zu\n", map_size);
addr = mmap(map_hint, map_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC,
MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
if (addr == MAP_FAILED) {
printf("mmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
}
else {
printf("mmap succeeded:  addr = %p\n", addr);
#ifdef SLEEP
/* leave time to use 'procstat -v' */
sleep(10);
#endif
if(munmap(addr, map_size) != 0) {
printf("munmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
}
}
return (0);
}
8< --- >8

and its output :

1) On an i386 machine, FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE :

$ ./test-mmap
=> calling mmap with hint = 0x2000, size = 4096
mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x281a8000
=> calling mmap without hint, size = 4096
mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x281a8000

$ procstat -v 1685
  PID  STARTEND PRT  RES PRES REF SHD FL TP PATH
 1685  0x8048000  0x8049000 r-x10   1   0 CN vn /tmp/test-mmap
 1685  0x8049000  0x810 rw-10   1   0 -- df
 1685 0x28049000 0x28078000 r-x   470  82  41 CN vn /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
 1685 0x28078000 0x2807a000 rw-20   1   0 C- vn /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
 1685 0x2807a000 0x2808d000 rw-   120   1   0 -- df
 1685 0x2808d000 0x2818b000 r-x  1340  82  41 CN vn /lib/libc.so.7
 1685 0x2818b000 0x28191000 rw-60   1   0 C- vn /lib/libc.so.7
 1685 0x28191000 0x281a8000 rw-50   1   0 -- df
 1685 0x281a8000 0x281a9000 rwx00   0   0 -- --
 1685 0x2820 0x2830 rw-20   1   0 -- df
 1685 0xbfbe 0xbfc0 rwx30   1   0 -- df

2) On an amd64 machine, FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE :

$ ./test-mmap
=> calling mmap with hint = 0x2000, size = 4096
mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x800538000
=> calling mmap without hint, size = 4096
mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x800538000

$ procstat -v 38899
  PID  STARTEND PRT  RES PRES REF SHD FL TP PATH
38899   0x40   0x401000 r-x10   1   0 CN vn
/tmp/test-mmap
38899   0x50   0x60 rw-20   1   0 -- df 
388990x800500x80053 r-x   480 218  95 CN vn
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1
388990x800530x800538000 rw-70   2   0 -- df 
388990x8005380000x800539000 rwx00   2   0 -- df 
388990x80062f0000x800637000 rw-80   1   0 C- vn
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1
388990x8006370000x800646000 rw-50   1   0 -- df 
388990x8006460000x80074e000 r-x  1460 218  95 CN vn
/lib/libc.so.7
388990x80074e0000x80084e000 ---00   2   0 -- df 
388990x80084e0000x80086d000 rw-   310   1   0 C- vn
/lib/libc.so.7
388990x80086d0000x800888000 rw-60   2   0 -- df 
388990x800a00x800c0 rw-50   1   0 -- df 
38899 0x7ffe 0x8000 rwx30   1   0 -- df 

Using MAP_FIXED, I can get the desired address, but it is overkill (it
replaces
any previous mappings and its use is discouraged, see mmap(2)) and
should not
be needed here.

Am I doing something wrong here ?

--
Ganael LAPLANCHE 
http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org
FreeBSD: martymac , http://www.FreeBSD.org
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Christer Solskogen]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow  wrote:
> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
> found recently (my shame of course) in mail list that there is service (
> pub.allbsd.org) which constantly building current versions. This is great,
> but at homepage of freebsd.org there is no word about it :)

That's because it's not official. Do you take the risk? Would a
multi-milion-dollar company do that?
For your private server, sure it's probably fine. But how do you know
that those files are not contaminated?
(That being said, the purpose of that service is good. And the files
there a most probably 100% fine. But if it's not official... then..)

-- 
chs, if there is only one candiate, there is one one choice!
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: fsck_ufs out of swapspace

[Kostik Belousov]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 09:51:43AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Dec-19 22:27:49 +0100, Michiel Boland  wrote:
> >Problem solved - it was indeed an endian thing.
> >The problem is that fsck uses a real_dev_bsize variable that is declared 
> >long, 
> >but the DIOCGSECTORSIZE ioctl takes an u_int argument.
> 
> To be accurate, this isn't an endian problem, it's a general problem
> of passing a pointer to an incorrectly sized object.  The bug is
> masked on amd64 & iA64 because real_dev_bsize is statically allocated
> and therefore initialised to zero.  This means the failure to assign
> the top 32 bits in the ioctl doesn't affect the final result.
> 
> >A PR has been submitted.
> 
> sparc64/163460 for the record.  Thank you for tracking that down.

The easier fix is to change the type of real_dev_bsize. I used long only
because other n variables keeping the sector size are long, but there
is no much reason to use long there.

Peter, would you, please retest the +J on non-512 byte sectors, with the
patch attached ?

diff --git a/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck.h b/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck.h
index 8091d0f..4e30a7e 100644
--- a/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck.h
+++ b/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck.h
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ charsnapname[BUFSIZ];   /* when doing 
snapshots, the name of the file */
 char   *cdevname;  /* name of device being checked */
 long   dev_bsize;  /* computed value of DEV_BSIZE */
 long   secsize;/* actual disk sector size */
-long   real_dev_bsize;
+u_int  real_dev_bsize; /* actual disk sector size, not overriden */
 char   nflag;  /* assume a no response */
 char   yflag;  /* assume a yes response */
 intbkgrdflag;  /* use a snapshot to run on an active system */
diff --git a/sbin/fsck_ffs/suj.c b/sbin/fsck_ffs/suj.c
index ec8b5ab..b784519 100644
--- a/sbin/fsck_ffs/suj.c
+++ b/sbin/fsck_ffs/suj.c
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ opendisk(const char *devnam)
&real_dev_bsize) == -1)
real_dev_bsize = secsize;
if (debug)
-   printf("dev_bsize %ld\n", real_dev_bsize);
+   printf("dev_bsize %u\n", real_dev_bsize);
 }
 
 /*


pgpcm0dWM9HIP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Christer Solskogen]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper  wrote:
>
> As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source 
> says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images 
> from.

Checksums compared to what? How would you know what the correct
checksums for OpenBSD-current is, if it's not built by Theo?


-- 
chs,
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Garrett Cooper]

On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Garrett Cooper  wrote:
>> 
>> As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source 
>> says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images 
>> from.
> 
> Checksums compared to what? How would you know what the correct
> checksums for OpenBSD-current is, if it's not built by Theo?

Release engineering for FreeBSD produces SHA256 checksums for all 
official releases. AFAIK though they're only in the announcement emails and not 
stored anywhere else.
I can't speak for OpenBSD's release process.
Thanks,
-Garrett___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Christer Solskogen]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Garrett Cooper  wrote:
>        Release engineering for FreeBSD produces SHA256 checksums for all 
> official releases. AFAIK though they're only in the announcement emails and 
> not stored anywhere else.
>        I can't speak for OpenBSD's release process.
> Thanks,


So why do you want to download from a non-official site then? What do
you gain with that?


-- 
chs,
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Garrett Cooper]

On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:01 AM, Christer Solskogen wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Yerenkow  
> wrote:
>> FreeBSD currently have very obscure, closed community. To get in touch, you
>> need to subscribe to several mail lists, constantly read them, I've just
>> found recently (my shame of course) in mail list that there is service (
>> pub.allbsd.org) which constantly building current versions. This is great,
>> but at homepage of freebsd.org there is no word about it :)
> 
> That's because it's not official. Do you take the risk? Would a
> multi-milion-dollar company do that?
> For your private server, sure it's probably fine. But how do you know
> that those files are not contaminated?
> (That being said, the purpose of that service is good. And the files
> there a most probably 100% fine. But if it's not official... then..)

As long as I have reliable checksums that match the what the upstream source 
says is the real thing, it doesn't practically matter where I get my images 
from.
-Garrett___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: battery display broken

[Dominic Fandrey]

On 16/12/2011 16:28, Ian Smith wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
  >  It seems something broke with the battery display. Last night it
  >  showed 94% remaining capacity for more than 2 hours.
  >
  >  Afterwards I docked the machine (HP6510b) and rebooted it. Since then
  >  more than 8 hours have passed, but it still shows 16% (the LED indicators
  >  state that the battery is full and no longer charging).
  >  ...

At least four things can go wrong.  The battery charging circuit might
be broken (my first T23 failed that way after 5 years); the battery
might just need 'conditioning' (discharged to exhaustion, beyond normal
low-battery shutdown, then fully charged - perhaps twice), to reset its
internal Coulomb Counter; the CC chip may be faulty; or the battery
itself may be failing / have failed, usually one cell first.


The battery still does the expected 3 hours. That's about as much as I
can expect.


Is the battery hot at this stage?  If that 'Present rate' is correct, a
3.35A/39.6W charge should tend to overheat the battery over time, if
charging continues beyond full capacity, which may indicate a bad cell.


Are you certain about that? Decent lithium cells can be charged with 6A
without becoming perceivably warmer. I'd expect that at least 39W of
the 39.6W get stored in the battery.


11.8V seems too low for a fully-charged 10.8V nominal LIon battery.  I
have several 4.0 and 4.4Ah like the below, which charge to ~12.4V, and
only get down to 11.8V while discharging, at around 85% nom. capacity.


It states 16% capacity. Everything fits that. It simply doesn't update
the readings. When I boot with a charged battery:
Present voltage:12540 mV


Interesting that your LEDs display a different view; perhaps BIOS + EC
just monitors voltage and cuts charge, but then what's reporting that
fairly high charge rate?  I'd expect the Embedded Controller to be doing
that .. any dmesg indications of ACPI problems talking to the EC?


Well, that's interesting, it reports 2 batteries:
battery0:  on acpi0
battery1:  on acpi0

I think there is an option for a second battery, but I'm certainly
not using it.


The 16% is likely from the battery's onboard coulomb counter, but then
so might be the (bogus?) charge rate report.  All speculative, I know ..


The data is all perfectly fine, it was simply from a moment in time
a couple hours in the past. It seems the reading is cached and never
updated.


All that said, I don't know specifically how HP do things, or what
normal full charge voltage is expected.  Tried another battery?


Tried another OS. Windows shows the battery status just fine.
So did RELENG_8. This is a regression in RELENG_9 there isn't a
problem with the battery. Or if there is RELENG_8 was able to
cope.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Andriy Gapon]

on 20/12/2011 10:08 Ganael LAPLANCHE said the following:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I am trying to use mmap(2) with a hint address. Unfortunately, this address
> seems to be ignored and I never manage to get the desired one, while it
> seems to be free.
[snip]
> Using MAP_FIXED, I can get the desired address, but it is overkill (it
> replaces
> any previous mappings and its use is discouraged, see mmap(2)) and
> should not
> be needed here.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong here ?

Can the following code explain what you are seeing?

/*
 * XXX for non-fixed mappings where no hint is provided or
 * the hint would fall in the potential heap space,
 * place it after the end of the largest possible heap.
 *
 * There should really be a pmap call to determine a reasonable
 * location.
 */
PROC_LOCK(td->td_proc);
if (addr == 0 ||
(addr >= round_page((vm_offset_t)vms->vm_taddr) &&
addr < round_page((vm_offset_t)vms->vm_daddr +
lim_max(td->td_proc, RLIMIT_DATA
addr = round_page((vm_offset_t)vms->vm_daddr +
lim_max(td->td_proc, RLIMIT_DATA));
PROC_UNLOCK(td->td_proc);

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

x11/sessreg: build fails with CLANG in FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE

[O. Hartmann]

On a freshly updated box the installation of x11/sessreg fails with the
shown message below.
On all boxes I run with FBSD 9 or 10 (all amd64, CLANG build) the build
and installation works fine.

Since I update the box from 8.2-STABLE to 9.0-PRE last night, cleaning
up all ports and having them rebuilt from scratch, I guess I have a
problem with remnants (or missing compatibility?) in the system.

Where to start looking? ttyslot looks like a base system function.


Regards, thanks in advance,
Oliver

===>  Building for sessreg-1.0.7
/usr/bin/make  all-recursive
Making all in man
  GENfilenames.sed
  GENsessreg.1
  CC sessreg.o
sessreg.c:281:27: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ttyslot' is
invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
sysnerr (slot_number = ttyslot (), "ttyslot");
   ^
1 warning generated.
  CCLD   sessreg
sessreg.o: In function `main':
sessreg.c:(.text+0x7bf): undefined reference to `ttyslot'
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see
invocation)
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg/work/sessreg-1.0.7.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg/work/sessreg-1.0.7.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg/work/sessreg-1.0.7.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Tuesday 20 December 2011 09:08:18 Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I am trying to use mmap(2) with a hint address. Unfortunately, this address
> seems to be ignored and I never manage to get the desired one, while it
> seems to be free.
> 
> Here is my code (the same code on NetBSD and GNU/Linux returns the hint
> address) :
> 
> 8< --- >8
> #include 
> #include 
> #include 
> 
> /* mmap */
> #include 
> 
> /* getpagesize */
> #include 
> 
> /* round_page */
> #include 
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> size_t map_size = getpagesize();
> 
> /* first call, ask for one page, with hint */
> char *map_hint = (char*)round_page(512*1024*1024);
> printf("=> calling mmap with hint = %p, size = %zu\n", map_hint,
> map_size);
> void *addr = mmap(map_hint, map_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE |
> PROT_EXEC,
>   MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
> if (addr == MAP_FAILED) {
> printf("mmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
> }
> else {
> printf("mmap succeeded:  addr = %p\n", addr);
> #ifdef SLEEP
> /* leave time to use 'procstat -v' */
> sleep(10);
> #endif
> if(munmap(addr, map_size) != 0) {
> printf("munmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
> }
> }
> 
> /* second call, one page, without hint */
> map_hint = 0;
> printf("=> calling mmap without hint, size = %zu\n", map_size);
> addr = mmap(map_hint, map_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC,
>   MAP_ANON | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
> if (addr == MAP_FAILED) {
> printf("mmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
> }
> else {
> printf("mmap succeeded:  addr = %p\n", addr);
> #ifdef SLEEP
> /* leave time to use 'procstat -v' */
> sleep(10);
> #endif
> if(munmap(addr, map_size) != 0) {
> printf("munmap failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
> }
> }
> return (0);
> }
> 8< --- >8
> 
> and its output :
> 
> 1) On an i386 machine, FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE :
> 
> $ ./test-mmap
> => calling mmap with hint = 0x2000, size = 4096
> mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x281a8000
> => calling mmap without hint, size = 4096
> mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x281a8000
> 
> $ procstat -v 1685
>   PID  STARTEND PRT  RES PRES REF SHD FL TP PATH
>  1685  0x8048000  0x8049000 r-x10   1   0 CN vn /tmp/test-mmap
>  1685  0x8049000  0x810 rw-10   1   0 -- df
>  1685 0x28049000 0x28078000 r-x   470  82  41 CN vn /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
>  1685 0x28078000 0x2807a000 rw-20   1   0 C- vn /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
>  1685 0x2807a000 0x2808d000 rw-   120   1   0 -- df
>  1685 0x2808d000 0x2818b000 r-x  1340  82  41 CN vn /lib/libc.so.7
>  1685 0x2818b000 0x28191000 rw-60   1   0 C- vn /lib/libc.so.7
>  1685 0x28191000 0x281a8000 rw-50   1   0 -- df
>  1685 0x281a8000 0x281a9000 rwx00   0   0 -- --
>  1685 0x2820 0x2830 rw-20   1   0 -- df
>  1685 0xbfbe 0xbfc0 rwx30   1   0 -- df
> 
> 2) On an amd64 machine, FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE :
> 
> $ ./test-mmap
> => calling mmap with hint = 0x2000, size = 4096
> mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x800538000
> => calling mmap without hint, size = 4096
> mmap succeeded:  addr = 0x800538000
> 
> $ procstat -v 38899
>   PID  STARTEND PRT  RES PRES REF SHD FL TP PATH
> 38899   0x40   0x401000 r-x10   1   0 CN vn
> /tmp/test-mmap
> 38899   0x50   0x60 rw-20   1   0 -- df 
> 388990x800500x80053 r-x   480 218  95 CN vn
> /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
> 388990x800530x800538000 rw-70   2   0 -- df 
> 388990x8005380000x800539000 rwx00   2   0 -- df 
> 388990x80062f0000x800637000 rw-80   1   0 C- vn
> /libexec/ld-elf.so.1
> 388990x8006370000x800646000 rw-50   1   0 -- df 
> 388990x8006460000x80074e000 r-x  1460 218  95 CN vn
> /lib/libc.so.7
> 388990x80074e0000x80084e000 ---00   2   0 -- df 
> 388990x80084e0000x80086d000 rw-   310   1   0 C- vn
> /lib/libc.so.7
> 388990x80086d0000x800888000 rw-60   2   0 -- df 
> 388990x800a00x800c0 rw-50   1   0 -- df 
> 38899 0x7ffe 0x8000 rwx30   1   0 -- df 
> 
> Using MAP_FIXED, I can get the desired address, but it is overkill (it
> replaces
> any previous mappings and its use is discouraged, see mmap(2)) and
> should not
> be needed here.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong here ?

FreeBSD reserves quite a bit of space for brk(2) style heap. Your
program will work if you use higher addresses.

You can also shrink the reserved space either system wide by setting
kern.maxdsiz sysctl in /boot/loader.conf, or in your program by setting
the maximum RLIMIT_DATA with setrlimit(

Is the svn2cvs gateway down ?

[Claude Buisson]

Hi,

It seems (from my own csup's and cvswe.cgi) that the src commits are lost,
starting with r228697 Sun Dec 18 22:04:55 2011)

What is going on (or off) ?

Claude Buisson
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: x11/sessreg: build fails with CLANG in FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE

[O. Hartmann]

On 12/20/11 11:13, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On a freshly updated box the installation of x11/sessreg fails with the
> shown message below.
> On all boxes I run with FBSD 9 or 10 (all amd64, CLANG build) the build
> and installation works fine.
> 
> Since I update the box from 8.2-STABLE to 9.0-PRE last night, cleaning
> up all ports and having them rebuilt from scratch, I guess I have a
> problem with remnants (or missing compatibility?) in the system.
> 
> Where to start looking? ttyslot looks like a base system function.
> 
> 
> Regards, thanks in advance,
> Oliver
> 
> ===>  Building for sessreg-1.0.7
> /usr/bin/make  all-recursive
> Making all in man
>   GENfilenames.sed
>   GENsessreg.1
>   CC sessreg.o
> sessreg.c:281:27: warning: implicit declaration of function 'ttyslot' is
> invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> sysnerr (slot_number = ttyslot (), "ttyslot");
>^
> 1 warning generated.
>   CCLD   sessreg
> sessreg.o: In function `main':
> sessreg.c:(.text+0x7bf): undefined reference to `ttyslot'
> clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see
> invocation)
> *** Error code 1
> 
> Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg/work/sessreg-1.0.7.
> *** Error code 1
> 
> Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg/work/sessreg-1.0.7.
> *** Error code 1
> 
> Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg/work/sessreg-1.0.7.
> *** Error code 1
> 
> Stop in /usr/ports/x11/sessreg.


Sorry for the noise.

As I gave myself the answer, some remnants polluted the system and I got
rid by simply call the propper make delete-old-libs/files in /usr/src.

Oliver



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: x11/sessreg: build fails with CLANG in FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE

[Michiel Boland]

On 12/20/2011 11:13, O. Hartmann wrote:

On a freshly updated box the installation of x11/sessreg fails with the
shown message below.
On all boxes I run with FBSD 9 or 10 (all amd64, CLANG build) the build
and installation works fine.

Since I update the box from 8.2-STABLE to 9.0-PRE last night, cleaning
up all ports and having them rebuilt from scratch, I guess I have a
problem with remnants (or missing compatibility?) in the system.

Where to start looking? ttyslot looks like a base system function.


Looks like you still have /usr/include/utmp.h
Do 'make delete-old' in /usr/src

Cheers
Michiel
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: x11/sessreg: build fails with CLANG in FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE

[O. Hartmann]

On 12/20/11 11:49, Michiel Boland wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 11:13, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On a freshly updated box the installation of x11/sessreg fails with the
>> shown message below.
>> On all boxes I run with FBSD 9 or 10 (all amd64, CLANG build) the build
>> and installation works fine.
>>
>> Since I update the box from 8.2-STABLE to 9.0-PRE last night, cleaning
>> up all ports and having them rebuilt from scratch, I guess I have a
>> problem with remnants (or missing compatibility?) in the system.
>>
>> Where to start looking? ttyslot looks like a base system function.
> 
> Looks like you still have /usr/include/utmp.h
> Do 'make delete-old' in /usr/src
> 
> Cheers
> Michiel

Hello.

Seconds after I wrote and sent the posting I remembered about cleaning
up the system ... I did and everything runs smooth and well now.

Thanks.

Oliver



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Ganael LAPLANCHE]

Hi Andriy, Hi Tijl,

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:10:47 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote
> Can the following code explain what you are seeing?
> [...]

Yes, for sure. I had seen this part of the code but, to be honest, had
not understood the meaning of this computation.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:10:26 +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote
> FreeBSD reserves quite a bit of space for brk(2) style heap. Your
> program will work if you use higher addresses.
> 
> You can also shrink the reserved space either system wide by setting
> kern.maxdsiz sysctl in /boot/loader.conf, or in your program 
> by setting the maximum RLIMIT_DATA with setrlimit(2).

Thanks for the explanation! Reducing reserved space for data segment
seems to work.

But there is still something I don't understand : on the Linux machine
where I ran my test program, the current RLIMIT_DATA is set to
0x/0x and I can manage to mmap at address 0x2000. If
I set the same limit on FreeBSD, I won't get the mapping at 0x2000.
So, there *is* a difference of behaviour between the two systems, but I
don't understand why.

Thanks to both of you,
Best regards,

--
Ganael LAPLANCHE 
http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org
FreeBSD: martymac , http://www.FreeBSD.org
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Ganael LAPLANCHE]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:02:01 +0100 (CET), Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote

> But there is still something I don't understand : on the Linux 
> machine where I ran my test program, the current RLIMIT_DATA 
> is set to 0x/0x and I can manage to mmap at 
> address 0x2000. If I set the same limit on FreeBSD, I 
> won't get the mapping at 0x2000. So, there *is* a 
> difference of behaviour between the two systems, but I don't 
> understand why.

Well, in fact, two things remain not very clear for me :

- Why are mmap()s performed *after* data segment ?
  => It seems they can go within, on GNU/Linux and NetBSD.

- Why do we have such a default value for datasize (8.2, amd64) :

$ limits
Resource limits (current):
  cputime  infinity secs
  filesize infinity kB
  datasize 33554432 kB

this is HUGE !

--
Ganael LAPLANCHE 
http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org
FreeBSD: martymac , http://www.FreeBSD.org
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Andriy Gapon]

on 20/12/2011 16:31 Ganael LAPLANCHE said the following:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:02:01 +0100 (CET), Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote
> 
>> But there is still something I don't understand : on the Linux 
>> machine where I ran my test program, the current RLIMIT_DATA 
>> is set to 0x/0x and I can manage to mmap at 
>> address 0x2000. If I set the same limit on FreeBSD, I 
>> won't get the mapping at 0x2000. So, there *is* a 
>> difference of behaviour between the two systems, but I don't 
>> understand why.
> 
> Well, in fact, two things remain not very clear for me :
> 
> - Why are mmap()s performed *after* data segment ?
>   => It seems they can go within, on GNU/Linux and NetBSD.
> 
> - Why do we have such a default value for datasize (8.2, amd64) :
> 
> $ limits
> Resource limits (current):
>   cputime  infinity secs
>   filesize infinity kB
>   datasize 33554432 kB
> 
> this is HUGE !

Just a guess - this might be some sort of optimization to keep virtual address
range of dynamic allocations untouched by unrelated mmap calls.  Not sure if
that's so and how useful could that be.
svn log / svn annotate of the file may reveal more details.

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Is the svn2cvs gateway down ?

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On 20. Dec 2011, at 10:01 , Claude Buisson wrote:

> It seems (from my own csup's and cvswe.cgi) that the src commits are lost,
> starting with r228697 Sun Dec 18 22:04:55 2011)
> 
> What is going on (or off) ?

Re $subject -- yes.  It will be worked on.

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
 Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

[9.0-RC3] tar xf with zip archive is broken

[Patrick Lamaiziere]

Hello,

Looks like tar -xf with zip archive is broken on 9.0. It creates the
directories but files are empty.

See with nagios-checker firefox plugin (.xpi which is a zip file)
http://code.google.com/p/nagioschecker/downloads/detail?name=nagioschecker-0.16.xpi&can=2&q=

total 20
drwxr-xr-x   4 patrick  patrick   6 20 déc 16:35 ./
drwxr-xr-x  43 patrick  patrick  89 20 déc 16:34 ../
drwxr-xr-x   3 patrick  patrick   3 20 déc 16:35 chrome/
-rwxr-xr-x   1 patrick  patrick   0 15 déc  2010 chrome.manifest*
drwxr-xr-x   3 patrick  patrick   3 20 déc 16:35 defaults/
-rwxr-xr-x   1 patrick  patrick   0 31 déc  2010 install.rdf*

On 8.2 that works fine.

Regards.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Ganael LAPLANCHE]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:03:03 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote

> Just a guess - this might be some sort of optimization to keep 
> virtual address range of dynamic allocations untouched by 
> unrelated mmap calls.  Not sure if that's so and how useful 
> could that be. svn log / svn annotate of the file may reveal 
> more details.

Mmmhh It seems that this part of the code is quite old and was
already present in the BSD 4.4 Lite kernel (not exactly in the same
shape, but with the same idea). Quite confusing...

--
Ganael LAPLANCHE 
http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org
FreeBSD: martymac , http://www.FreeBSD.org
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

8.2 Problem with creating Snapshots on large file systems? Cannot backup anymore.

[Karl M. Joch]

Hi,

since a few days i have trubles on one server when running the daily amanda 
backup. This was running fine since over 6 Month and now dump, called by 
amanda, always returns:

FAIL dumper localhost.sbg.kmjeuro.com mirror/CTSs1d 20111219230324 0 [dump 
(16603) /sbin/dump returned 1]
  sendbackup: start [localhost.sbg.kmjeuro.com:mirror/CTSs1d level 0]
  sendbackup: info BACKUP=/sbin/dump
  sendbackup: info RECOVER_CMD=/usr/bin/gzip -dc |/sbin/restore -xpGf - ...
  sendbackup: info COMPRESS_SUFFIX=.gz
  sendbackup: info end
  ? mksnap_ffs: Cannot create snapshot /usr/.snap/dump_snapshot: Resource 
temporarily unavailable
  | dump: Cannot create /usr/.snap/dump_snapshot: No such file or directory
  |
  ? dump (16603) /sbin/dump returned 1
  sendbackup: error [dump (16603) /sbin/dump returned 1]

and Amanda fails.

System is:

kern.ostype: FreeBSD
kern.osrelease: 8.2-STABLE
kern.osrevision: 199506
kern.version: FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #1: Sun Mar 27 20:08:58 CEST 2011

FS:

FilesystemSizeUsed   Avail Capacity  Mounted on
/dev/mirror/CTSs1a1.9G362M1.4G20%/
devfs 1.0K1.0K  0B   100%/dev
/dev/mirror/CTSs1f4.8G2.0M4.5G 0%/tmp
/dev/mirror/CTSs1d969G301G590G34%/usr
/dev/mirror/CTSs1e 48G2.3G 42G 5%/var
/dev/mirror/CTSs1g779G4.5G712G 1%/usr/l1
devfs 1.0K1.0K  0B   100%/var/named/dev

I tried alot of things meanwhile:

- Powered of, running fsck -y in Single User Mode

- Replaced one Harddisk which had some (recoverable) read errors and resynced 
gmirror

- Googled alot and found some other posts with the same problem, but no real 
answer.

I want to stay with ufs2 and Amanda and dont want to switch to ZFS at the 
moment. I have some other Servers which does the same thing without any 
problem, as this one has done it for month too. I prepared an rsync backup to 
one of our NAS to have a temp backup but i need to have tapes soon again. Any 
help or idea would be very appreciated.

Thank you,

Karl



___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: battery display broken

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:10:34 +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
 > On 16/12/2011 16:28, Ian Smith wrote:
 > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
 > >   >  It seems something broke with the battery display. Last night it
 > >   >  showed 94% remaining capacity for more than 2 hours.
 > >   >
 > >   >  Afterwards I docked the machine (HP6510b) and rebooted it. Since then
 > >   >  more than 8 hours have passed, but it still shows 16% (the LED
 > > indicators
 > >   >  state that the battery is full and no longer charging).
 > >   >  ...
 > > 
 > > At least four things can go wrong.  The battery charging circuit might
 > > be broken (my first T23 failed that way after 5 years); the battery
 > > might just need 'conditioning' (discharged to exhaustion, beyond normal
 > > low-battery shutdown, then fully charged - perhaps twice), to reset its
 > > internal Coulomb Counter; the CC chip may be faulty; or the battery
 > > itself may be failing / have failed, usually one cell first.
 > 
 > The battery still does the expected 3 hours. That's about as much as I
 > can expect.

Good!  I suspected hardware because I've seen all of the above, and I'd
seen no software problems with charging on FreeBSD {6,7,8}.x, so for the 
sake of your hardware I'm glad all that was irrelevant :)

 > > Is the battery hot at this stage?  If that 'Present rate' is correct, a
 > > 3.35A/39.6W charge should tend to overheat the battery over time, if
 > > charging continues beyond full capacity, which may indicate a bad cell.
 > 
 > Are you certain about that? Decent lithium cells can be charged with 6A
 > without becoming perceivably warmer. I'd expect that at least 39W of
 > the 39.6W get stored in the battery.

Certain.  High charge rates are fine for bulk capacity, but once full, 
continued charging will (must!) overheat the battery, and with LIion 
batteries, failure modes may include explosion and/or fierce fire.

One recent local fire that completely consumed a house and sheds began 
just that way, unattended overcharging of large LIion batteries on an 
electric bicycle; I've yet to ask the poor guy what sort of charger it 
was, but any decent charge circuits monitor voltage, temperature and 
likely dV/dt at minimum - so please excuse my unwarranted concern :)

Even with shorted cell/s, laptops monitor temperature too .. "Brand X 
laptop brings down jetliner" must be a manufacturer's worst nightmare.

 > > 11.8V seems too low for a fully-charged 10.8V nominal LIon battery.  I
 > > have several 4.0 and 4.4Ah like the below, which charge to ~12.4V, and
 > > only get down to 11.8V while discharging, at around 85% nom. capacity.
 > 
 > It states 16% capacity. Everything fits that. It simply doesn't update
 > the readings. When I boot with a charged battery:
 > Present voltage: 12540 mV

Just so.  This bug isn't hurting hardware, just messing with minds in 
this manifestation, while we wonder what other effect it may have?

 > > Interesting that your LEDs display a different view; perhaps BIOS + EC
 > > just monitors voltage and cuts charge, but then what's reporting that
 > > fairly high charge rate?  I'd expect the Embedded Controller to be doing
 > > that .. any dmesg indications of ACPI problems talking to the EC?
 > 
 > Well, that's interesting, it reports 2 batteries:
 > battery0:  on acpi0
 > battery1:  on acpi0
 > 
 > I think there is an option for a second battery, but I'm certainly
 > not using it.

acpiconf -i1 should report it as unavailable.

 > > The 16% is likely from the battery's onboard coulomb counter, but then
 > > so might be the (bogus?) charge rate report.  All speculative, I know ..
 > 
 > The data is all perfectly fine, it was simply from a moment in time
 > a couple hours in the past. It seems the reading is cached and never
 > updated.

Obvious once known :)  Curious to check acpiconf.c diffs 8.2 vs 9, I see 
only this latest change, which if I read it right, was in 8.2 anyway:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/acpi/acpiconf/acpiconf.c.diff?r1=1.27;r2=1.28
 

and that shouldn't be pulling cached data, so maybe this issue is deeper 
in the ACPI/EC code?  Well out of my depth, and no time to go diving 
now; anyway, another data point for kern/162859.

 > > All that said, I don't know specifically how HP do things, or what
 > > normal full charge voltage is expected.  Tried another battery?
 > 
 > Tried another OS. Windows shows the battery status just fine.
 > So did RELENG_8. This is a regression in RELENG_9 there isn't a
 > problem with the battery. Or if there is RELENG_8 was able to
 > cope.

So it seems.  When I get full backups done I'll brave bsdinstall again, 
but last time it wasn't happy to reuse my 7.4 slice's partitions without 
external newfs'ing, and I'm still hoping not to nuke its existing /home.

cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send a

status of ports and clang

[Mark Linimon]

I have recently been able to get the new build cluster on pointyhat-west
set up to run full builds of ports with clang on amd64-9.  I have documented
the latest results on the wiki:

  http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang

If you are interested in working on ports being built via clang, this
is your place to start.

Please also note that now that we have up-to-date builds going, it is
not as useful to us to report individual clang build failures.  Patches
to fix problems are, of course, highly welcome.

mcl
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Tuesday 20 December 2011 15:31:48 Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:02:01 +0100 (CET), Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote
>> But there is still something I don't understand : on the Linux
>> machine where I ran my test program, the current RLIMIT_DATA
>> is set to 0x/0x and I can manage to mmap at
>> address 0x2000. If I set the same limit on FreeBSD, I
>> won't get the mapping at 0x2000. So, there *is* a
>> difference of behaviour between the two systems, but I don't
>> understand why.
> 
> Well, in fact, two things remain not very clear for me :
> 
> - Why are mmap()s performed *after* data segment ?
>   => It seems they can go within, on GNU/Linux and NetBSD.

I don't know about NetBSD but Linux maps from the stack downwards when
there's no hint and FreeBSD maps from the program upwards. That means
that on Linux brk and mmap grow toward each other and unless you
allocate a lot of memory they don't compete with each other. On FreeBSD
brk and mmap do compete for the same space and this was resolved by
preserving room for brk and moving mmap allocations further up.

The case with hint lazily follows from that. Linux doesn't have any
restrictions and FreeBSD preserves room for brk and moves the
allocation up.

> - Why do we have such a default value for datasize (8.2, amd64) :
> 
> $ limits
> Resource limits (current):
>   cputime  infinity secs
>   filesize infinity kB
>   datasize 33554432 kB
> 
> this is HUGE !

malloc(3) used to be implemented on top of brk(2) so the size was
increased on amd64 so you could malloc more memory. Nowadays malloc
can use mmap(2) so a large datasize isn't really needed anymore.

> --

That should be "-- " (with space at the end).

> Ganael LAPLANCHE 
> http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org
> FreeBSD: martymac , http://www.FreeBSD.org


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Using mmap(2) with a hint address

[Artem Belevich]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Andriy Gapon  wrote:
> on 20/12/2011 16:31 Ganael LAPLANCHE said the following:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:02:01 +0100 (CET), Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote
>>
>>> But there is still something I don't understand : on the Linux
>>> machine where I ran my test program, the current RLIMIT_DATA
>>> is set to 0x/0x and I can manage to mmap at
>>> address 0x2000. If I set the same limit on FreeBSD, I
>>> won't get the mapping at 0x2000. So, there *is* a
>>> difference of behaviour between the two systems, but I don't
>>> understand why.
>>
>> Well, in fact, two things remain not very clear for me :
>>
>> - Why are mmap()s performed *after* data segment ?
>>   => It seems they can go within, on GNU/Linux and NetBSD.
>>
>> - Why do we have such a default value for datasize (8.2, amd64) :
>>
>> $ limits
>> Resource limits (current):
>>   cputime              infinity secs
>>   filesize             infinity kB
>>   datasize             33554432 kB
>>
>> this is HUGE !
>
> Just a guess - this might be some sort of optimization to keep virtual address
> range of dynamic allocations untouched by unrelated mmap calls.  Not sure if
> that's so and how useful could that be.

Something like that. In the past heap allocator used to get memory
from system via sbrk(). It still may do so, if you set
MALLOC_OPTIONS=D. The problem is that sbrk() can't advance past an
area used by something else (i.e. mmaped region) so kernel makes an
effort to leave a lot of unused address space which sbrk() may claim
later on. These days malloc() by default uses mmap, so if you don't
force it to use sbrk() you can probably lower MAXDSIZE and let kernel
use most of address space for hinted mmaps.

That said, unless you use MAP_FIXED, malloc is not guaranteed to pay
attention to hints and the app must be able to deal with that. FreeBSD
kernel behavior is just one possible scenario that may affect mmap
behavior. Behavior may also change between architectures, or due to
preceeding mmaps (think of dynamic linker mapping in shared
libraries). If an application relies on hints having effect without
MAP_FIXED, it's the app that needs fixing, IMHO.

--Artem

> svn log / svn annotate of the file may reveal more details.
>
> --
> Andriy Gapon
> ___
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: fsck_ufs out of swapspace

[Peter Holm]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:48:33AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 09:51:43AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On 2011-Dec-19 22:27:49 +0100, Michiel Boland  wrote:
> > >Problem solved - it was indeed an endian thing.
> > >The problem is that fsck uses a real_dev_bsize variable that is declared 
> > >long, 
> > >but the DIOCGSECTORSIZE ioctl takes an u_int argument.
> > 
> > To be accurate, this isn't an endian problem, it's a general problem
> > of passing a pointer to an incorrectly sized object.  The bug is
> > masked on amd64 & iA64 because real_dev_bsize is statically allocated
> > and therefore initialised to zero.  This means the failure to assign
> > the top 32 bits in the ioctl doesn't affect the final result.
> > 
> > >A PR has been submitted.
> > 
> > sparc64/163460 for the record.  Thank you for tracking that down.
> 
> The easier fix is to change the type of real_dev_bsize. I used long only
> because other n variables keeping the sector size are long, but there
> is no much reason to use long there.
> 
> Peter, would you, please retest the +J on non-512 byte sectors, with the
> patch attached ?
> 

No problems seen while testing on both i386 and amd64 with a malloc MD
disk, sector size of 4k and SUJ.

- Peter


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: [9.0-RC3] tar xf with zip archive is broken

[Martin Matuska]

On 20.12.2011 16:41, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Looks like tar -xf with zip archive is broken on 9.0. It creates the
> directories but files are empty.
>
> See with nagios-checker firefox plugin (.xpi which is a zip file)
> http://code.google.com/p/nagioschecker/downloads/detail?name=nagioschecker-0.16.xpi&can=2&q=
>
> total 20
> drwxr-xr-x   4 patrick  patrick   6 20 déc 16:35 ./
> drwxr-xr-x  43 patrick  patrick  89 20 déc 16:34 ../
> drwxr-xr-x   3 patrick  patrick   3 20 déc 16:35 chrome/
> -rwxr-xr-x   1 patrick  patrick   0 15 déc  2010 chrome.manifest*
> drwxr-xr-x   3 patrick  patrick   3 20 déc 16:35 defaults/
> -rwxr-xr-x   1 patrick  patrick   0 31 déc  2010 install.rdf*
>
> On 8.2 that works fine.
>
> Regards.
> ___
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
This is a libarchive bug.

Fixed in upstream r3723:
http://code.google.com/p/libarchive/source/detail?r=3723

I am preparing a libarchive update to 2.8.5 + recent SVN bugfixes. This
won't make it to 9.0, though.

-- 
Martin Matuska
FreeBSD committer
http://blog.vx.sk

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Igor Mozolevsky]

Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
"criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
making this statement, but someone has to!)


Cheers,
Igor M :-)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[O. Hartmann]

On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
> making this statement, but someone has to!)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Igor M :-)

Unfortunately, M. Larabel is the only one who's performing benchmarks on
FreeBSD, comparing its performance to the Linux-opponents. Adn indeed,
there is a lot of criticism, but no alternative.
I said unfortunately - not offensive - since Larabel and Phoronix are
sadly the only ones who do actually such bechmarking.

It would be much more nicer and kind to support those people.

Well, in January/February we get new hardware. One box is supposed to do
number crunching via 12 cores and a TESLA GPU. My colleague is
developing a high parallelized peice of software for satellite data
transformation. The software package is CPU bound, partially GPU, but
massively memory hungry (96 to 128 GB RAM is needed).
What I can offer is, since I will also work on that machine and I've
free hand to administer, in the spare time of doing my PhD, installing
FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 besides SuSe Linux and looking forward having one ZFS
data storage drive for homes, so both systems can perform on a most
recent ZFS. I'm new to Linux, not a BSD guru, nor I'm a professional
programmer/developer. My skills are sufficient for the daily scientific
work. So, without pressure, I'm willing to perform some HPC benchmarks
under advice if the day comes and those interested in bare numbers of
FreeBSD vs. Linux performance with a real-world-scientific application.

I would appreciate to see some of the developers and/or FreeBSD hackers
to help Phoronix setting up a proper testenvironment instead of bashing
M. Larabel and his fellows.

Regards,
Oliver



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Samuel J. Greear]

http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved

PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.

Sam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:

> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
> making this statement, but someone has to!)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Igor M :-)
> ___
> freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[O. Hartmann]

On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
> 
> PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
> and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
> 
> Sam
> 
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
> 
>> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
>> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
>> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
>> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
>> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
>> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
>> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
>> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
>> making this statement, but someone has to!)
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Igor M :-)
>> ___
>> freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>>

Thanks for those numbers.
Impressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is
still impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place
when it comes to a comparison to Linux.
Also, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance.
But this is only one suite of testing. Scientific Linux is supposed to
give the best performance for scientifi purposes, i.e. for longhaul
calculations, much numerical stuff. It outperforms in a typical server
application FreeBSd, were "FreeBSD shoulkd have the power to serve".

Is the postgresql benchmark the only way to benchmark?

Well, this inspires me to gather together all the benchmarks someone
could find. There were lots of compalins about FreeBSD's poor
performance with BIND - once a domain of FreeBSD. Network performance
seems also to be an issue if it comes to scalability.
It would be nice to see what portion of the raw CPU/GPU power the OS
(FreeBSD, Linux ...)  delivers to scientific applications.

I only know some kind of benchmarks, BYTE UNIX benchmark, LINPACK test
... Does someone know a site to look for a couple of benchmarks to test

a) memory system
b) scalability (apart from pgbench)
c) network performance/throughput/network scalability
d) portion of CPU performance the system delivers for numerical
applications to the user apart from the system's own consumption
e) disk I/O performance and scalability

it would also be nice to discuss some nice settings and performance
tunings for FreeBSD for several scenarios. I guess, starting developing
benchmarking test scenarios for several purposes would lead faster to
real numbers and non polemic than weird discussions ...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
> > http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
> > 
> > PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
> > and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
> > 
> > Sam
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
> >> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
> >> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
> >> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
> >> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
> >> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
> >> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
> >> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
> >> making this statement, but someone has to!)
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Igor M :-)
> >> ___
> >> freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
> >>
> 
> Thanks for those numbers.
> Impressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is
> still impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place
> when it comes to a comparison to Linux.
> Also, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance.

Preface to my long post below:

The things being discussed here are benchmarks, as in "how much work
can you get out of Thing".  This is VERY DIFFERENT from testing
interactivity in a scheduler, which is more of a test that says "when
Thing X is executed while heavier-Thing Y is also being executed, how
much interaction is lost in Thing X".

The reason people notice this when using Xorg is because it's visual,
in an environment where responsiveness is absolutely mandatory above all
else.  Nobody is going to put up with a system where during a buildworld
they go to move a window or click a mouse button or type a key and find
that the window doesn't move, the mouse click is lost, or the key typed
has gone into the bit bucket -- or, that those things are SEVERELY
delayed, to the point where interactivity is crap.

I just want to make that clear to folks.  This immense thread has been
with regards to the latter -- bad interactivity/responsiveness on a
system which was undergoing load that SHOULD be distributed "more
evenly" across the system *while* keeping interactivity/responsiveness
high.  Historically nice/renice has been used for this task, but that
was when kernels were a little less complex and I/O subsystems were less
complex.  Remember: we've now got schedulers for each type of thing,
and who gets what priority?  You get my point I'm sure.

So remember: this was to discuss that aspect, with regards to ULE vs.
4BSD schedulers.

Now, back to the benchmarks:

This also interested me:

* Linux system crashed
  http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg8.html

* OpenIndiana system crashed same way as Linux system
  http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg00017.html

I cannot help but wonder if the Linux and OpenIndiana installations were
more stressful on the hardware -- getting more out of the system, maybe
resulting in increased power/load, which in turn resulted in the systems
locking up (shoddy PSU, unstable mainboard, MCH problems, etc.).

My point is that Francois states these things in such a way to imply
that "DragonflyBSD was more stable", when in fact I happen to wonder the
opposite point -- that is to say, Linux and OpenIndiana were trying to
use the hardware more-so than DragonflyBSD, thus tickled what may be a
hardware-level problem.

> But this is only one suite of testing. Scientific Linux is supposed to
> give the best performance for scientifi purposes, i.e. for longhaul
> calculations, much numerical stuff. It outperforms in a typical server
> application FreeBSd, were "FreeBSD shoulkd have the power to serve".
> 
> Is the postgresql benchmark the only way to benchmark?

I sure hope not.  But you know what's equally as interesting?  This:

http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/

Specifically circa 2008:

http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/4cpu-pgsql.png
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/pgsql-16cpu-2.png
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/pgsql-16cpu.png

Now, I don't know if what was used in those ("pgsql sysbench") was the
same thing as "pg_bench" in the DragonflyBSD tests, but if so, the
numbers are different to a point that is preposterous.

There's also this:

http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/pgsql-ncpu.png

Now, compare those numbers to the TPS numbers shown here:

http://dl.wolfpond.org/Pg-benchmarks.pdf

So um... yeah.  Now, if som

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Matthew Tippett]

Bottom post this time to follow Oliver :).

On 12/20/2011 02:54 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:

On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved

PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.

Sam
There are still possible issues with those benchmarks.  The Xeon has 
known problems scaling from 6 to 12 cores (well enabling the 
hyperthreading), so you may find that some platforms are penalized in 
performance if HT is turned on.  See the scaling that Phoronix has done in


http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112166-AR-1112153AR03

Most systems are good with scaling on real cores, the hyperthreading 
(and for that matter the Bulldozer thread affinity) can really break 
performance.   Different platforms have different behaviours.  
Benchmarking is a mucky business..


Note that the benchmarks with Phoronix test suite are repeatable, once 
installed, you can just run "./phoronix-test-suite benchmark 
1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37" to repeat (as close as the system allows) the 
benchmarks that started this thread.

Is the postgresql benchmark the only way to benchmark?
pgbench is already included in the Phoronix Test Suite (at least 9.0.1 
TPC-B benchmark.




Well, this inspires me to gather together all the benchmarks someone
could find. There were lots of compalins about FreeBSD's poor
performance with BIND - once a domain of FreeBSD. Network performance
seems also to be an issue if it comes to scalability.
It would be nice to see what portion of the raw CPU/GPU power the OS
(FreeBSD, Linux ...)  delivers to scientific applications.

I only know some kind of benchmarks, BYTE UNIX benchmark, LINPACK test
... Does someone know a site to look for a couple of benchmarks to test

a) memory system
b) scalability (apart from pgbench)
c) network performance/throughput/network scalability
d) portion of CPU performance the system delivers for numerical
applications to the user apart from the system's own consumption
e) disk I/O performance and scalability
The majority of these benchmarks are already in Phoronix Test Suite.  
There is monitoring capability (temp, load, CPU states, etc).  The 
question is the mapping from system attribute to benchmark, as well as 
determine what the ambigious terms mean (scaling can mean on increasing 
workloads, as memory is increased, as cpus are increased).




it would also be nice to discuss some nice settings and performance
tunings for FreeBSD for several scenarios. I guess, starting developing
benchmarking test scenarios for several purposes would lead faster to
real numbers and non polemic than weird discussions ...

This is what Michael and I are wanting to see.  Adrian Chadd has 
offerered to help facilitate within the FreeBSD community.  As mentioned 
before, what I'd like to see is


1) Recommendations for more rounded benchmarks from the FreeBSD 
perspective

2) Tuning guide documented somewhere within the community
3) Comparative results based on the communities testing.

All concrete, and all achievable.

Regards,

Matthew
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[O. Hartmann]

On 12/21/11 00:29, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:54:23PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 12/20/11 22:45, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/25334/DragonFly_BSD_MP_Performance_Significantly_Improved
>>>
>>> PostgreSQL tests, see the linked PDF for #'s on FreeBSD, DragonFly, Linux
>>> and Solaris. Steps to reproduce these benchmarks provided.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Igor Mozolevsky 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
 criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
 benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
 benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
 numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
 world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
 platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
 "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
 making this statement, but someone has to!)


 Cheers,
 Igor M :-)
 ___
 freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

>>
>> Thanks for those numbers.
>> Impressive how Matthew Dillon's project jumps forward now. And it is
>> still impressive to see that the picture is still in the right place
>> when it comes to a comparison to Linux.
>> Also, OpenIndiana shows an impressive performance.
> 
> Preface to my long post below:
> 
> The things being discussed here are benchmarks, as in "how much work
> can you get out of Thing".  This is VERY DIFFERENT from testing
> interactivity in a scheduler, which is more of a test that says "when
> Thing X is executed while heavier-Thing Y is also being executed, how
> much interaction is lost in Thing X".
> 
> The reason people notice this when using Xorg is because it's visual,
> in an environment where responsiveness is absolutely mandatory above all
> else.  Nobody is going to put up with a system where during a buildworld
> they go to move a window or click a mouse button or type a key and find
> that the window doesn't move, the mouse click is lost, or the key typed
> has gone into the bit bucket -- or, that those things are SEVERELY
> delayed, to the point where interactivity is crap.

I whitnessed sticky, jumpy and non-responsive-for seconds FreeBSD
servers (serving homes, NFS/SAMBA and PostgreSQL database (small)).
Those "seconds" where enough to cut a ssh line. Not funny. Network
traffic droped significantly. X/Desktop makes the problem visible,
indeed. But not seeing it does not mean it isn't there.
This might be the reason why FreeBSD is so much behind when it comes to X?

> 
> I just want to make that clear to folks.  This immense thread has been
> with regards to the latter -- bad interactivity/responsiveness on a
> system which was undergoing load that SHOULD be distributed "more
> evenly" across the system *while* keeping interactivity/responsiveness
> high.  Historically nice/renice has been used for this task, but that
> was when kernels were a little less complex and I/O subsystems were less
> complex.  Remember: we've now got schedulers for each type of thing,
> and who gets what priority?  You get my point I'm sure.
> 
> So remember: this was to discuss that aspect, with regards to ULE vs.
> 4BSD schedulers.
> 
> Now, back to the benchmarks:
> 
> This also interested me:
> 
> * Linux system crashed
>   http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg8.html
> 
> * OpenIndiana system crashed same way as Linux system
>   http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-11/msg00017.html
> 
> I cannot help but wonder if the Linux and OpenIndiana installations were
> more stressful on the hardware -- getting more out of the system, maybe
> resulting in increased power/load, which in turn resulted in the systems
> locking up (shoddy PSU, unstable mainboard, MCH problems, etc.).

Is FreeBSD supposed to run on dumpyard equipment? In former times,
freeBSD was used on high value hardware, not the decomissioned crap with
shoddy PSUs or whatsoever.
If I need a server, I care about quality hardware as I do for my lab's
box and my own box at home. I expect a "server garde" hardware to act
like that and I expect the operating system to get the maximum out of
that hardware. Otherwise it is not worth one shot.

> 
> My point is that Francois states these things in such a way to imply
> that "DragonflyBSD was more stable", when in fact I happen to wonder the
> opposite point -- that is to say, Linux and OpenIndiana were trying to
> use the hardware more-so than DragonflyBSD, thus tickled what may be a
> hardware-level problem.
> 
>> But this is only one suite of testing. Scientific Linux is supposed to
>>

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Matthew Tippett]

For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to 
reproduce the benchmarks in question.


Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.

Run the benchmark against those used in the article

phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37

You will be asked to push the comparison up to openbenchmarking at the end.

Matthew

On 12/20/2011 01:39 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:

On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:

Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
"criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
making this statement, but someone has to!)


Cheers,
Igor M :-)

Unfortunately, M. Larabel is the only one who's performing benchmarks on
FreeBSD, comparing its performance to the Linux-opponents. Adn indeed,
there is a lot of criticism, but no alternative.
I said unfortunately - not offensive - since Larabel and Phoronix are
sadly the only ones who do actually such bechmarking.

It would be much more nicer and kind to support those people.

Well, in January/February we get new hardware. One box is supposed to do
number crunching via 12 cores and a TESLA GPU. My colleague is
developing a high parallelized peice of software for satellite data
transformation. The software package is CPU bound, partially GPU, but
massively memory hungry (96 to 128 GB RAM is needed).
What I can offer is, since I will also work on that machine and I've
free hand to administer, in the spare time of doing my PhD, installing
FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 besides SuSe Linux and looking forward having one ZFS
data storage drive for homes, so both systems can perform on a most
recent ZFS. I'm new to Linux, not a BSD guru, nor I'm a professional
programmer/developer. My skills are sufficient for the daily scientific
work. So, without pressure, I'm willing to perform some HPC benchmarks
under advice if the day comes and those interested in bare numbers of
FreeBSD vs. Linux performance with a real-world-scientific application.

I would appreciate to see some of the developers and/or FreeBSD hackers
to help Phoronix setting up a proper testenvironment instead of bashing
M. Larabel and his fellows.

Regards,
Oliver



___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Adrian Chadd]

Is there a specific version of the test suite that should be used, to
compare against the published results?


Adrian

On 20 December 2011 17:18, Matthew Tippett  wrote:
> For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
> reproduce the benchmarks in question.
>
> Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.
>
> Run the benchmark against those used in the article
>
>    phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
>
> You will be asked to push the comparison up to openbenchmarking at the end.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 12/20/2011 01:39 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
>>>
>>> Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
>>> criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
>>> benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
>>> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
>>> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
>>> world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
>>> platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
>>> "criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
>>> making this statement, but someone has to!)
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Igor M :-)
>>
>> Unfortunately, M. Larabel is the only one who's performing benchmarks on
>> FreeBSD, comparing its performance to the Linux-opponents. Adn indeed,
>> there is a lot of criticism, but no alternative.
>> I said unfortunately - not offensive - since Larabel and Phoronix are
>> sadly the only ones who do actually such bechmarking.
>>
>> It would be much more nicer and kind to support those people.
>>
>> Well, in January/February we get new hardware. One box is supposed to do
>> number crunching via 12 cores and a TESLA GPU. My colleague is
>> developing a high parallelized peice of software for satellite data
>> transformation. The software package is CPU bound, partially GPU, but
>> massively memory hungry (96 to 128 GB RAM is needed).
>> What I can offer is, since I will also work on that machine and I've
>> free hand to administer, in the spare time of doing my PhD, installing
>> FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 besides SuSe Linux and looking forward having one ZFS
>> data storage drive for homes, so both systems can perform on a most
>> recent ZFS. I'm new to Linux, not a BSD guru, nor I'm a professional
>> programmer/developer. My skills are sufficient for the daily scientific
>> work. So, without pressure, I'm willing to perform some HPC benchmarks
>> under advice if the day comes and those interested in bare numbers of
>> FreeBSD vs. Linux performance with a real-world-scientific application.
>>
>> I would appreciate to see some of the developers and/or FreeBSD hackers
>> to help Phoronix setting up a proper testenvironment instead of bashing
>> M. Larabel and his fellows.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>
> ___
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[matthew]

   The benchmarks themselves are versioned.  So in general most of the
   av= ailable versions of PTS itself should be fine.  PTS can be
   considered = an execution shell that doesn't affect the benchmark
   itself.
   Note th= at you'll download a pile of the benchmarks, build and
   install them.  = Then you run about 49 individual steps.
   Matthew

   -- Sent from my HP Pre3
 _

   On Dec 20, 2011 5:30 PM, Adrian Chadd = ; wrote:
   Is there a specific version of the test suite that = should be used,
   to
   compare against the published results?
   

   Adrian
   
   On 20 December 2011 17:18, Matthew Tippett <= ;matt...@phoronix.com>
   wrote:
   > For such a system, the greatest= immediate value would be to attempt
   to
   > reproduce the benchmarks= in question.
   >
   > Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suit= e.com or freshports.org.
   >
   > Run the benchmark against th= ose used in the article
   >
   >    phoronix-test-su= ite benchmark
   1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37
   >
   > You will be aske= d to push the comparison up to openbenchmarking at
   the end.
   >
> Matthew
   >
   >
   > On 12/20/2011 01:39 PM, O. = Hartmann wrote:
   >>
   >> On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozol= evsky wrote:
   >>>
   >>> Interestingly, while peo= ple seem to be (arguably rightly)
   focused on
   >>> criticising= Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an
   alternative
   >>&= gt; benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is
   important to
   >>> benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered   any
   >>> numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, = or any other
   "real
   >>> world"-application torture tests done= on the aforementioned
   two
   >>> platforms... IMO, this just g= oes to show that "doing is hard"
   and
   >>> "criticising is muc= h easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony
   involved in
   >>> maki= ng this statement, but someone has to!)
   >>>
   >>&g= t;
   >>> Cheers,
   >>> Igor M :-)
   >>= 
   >> Unfortunately, M. Larabel is the only one who's performingbenchmarks 
on
   >> FreeBSD, comparing its performance to the Linu= x-opponents. Adn
   indeed,
   >> there is a lot of criticism, but no= alternative.
   >> I said unfortunately - not offensive - since L= arabel and Phoronix
   are
   >> sadly the only ones who do actually = such bechmarking.
   >>
   >> It would be much more nicer= and kind to support those people.
   >>
   >> Well, in J= anuary/February we get new hardware. One box is
   supposed to do
   >&g= t; number crunching via 12 cores and a TESLA GPU. My colleague
   is
   >= ;> developing a high parallelized peice of software for satellite
   data= 
   >> transformation. The software package is CPU bound, partiall= y GPU,
   but
   >> massively memory hungry (96 to 128 GB RAM is need= ed).
   >> What I can offer is, since I will also work on that mac= hine and
   I've
   >> free hand to administer, in the spare time of = doing my PhD,
   installing
   >> FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 besides SuSe Linux= and looking forward having one
   ZFS
   >> data storage drive for h= omes, so both systems can perform on a
   most
   >> recent ZFS. I'm = new to Linux, not a BSD guru, nor I'm a
   professional
   >> program= mer/developer. My skills are sufficient for the daily
   scientific
   >= > work. So, without pressure, I'm willing to perform some HPC
   benchmarks= 
   >> under advice if the day comes and those interested in barenumbers of
   >> FreeBSD vs. Linux performance with a real-world-s= cientific
   application.
   >>
   >> I would appreciate to = see some of the developers and/or FreeBSD
   hackers
   >> to help Ph= oronix setting up a proper testenvironment instead of
   bashing
   >>= ; M. Larabel and his fellows.
   >>
   >> Regards,
   = >> Oliver
   >>
   >
   > __= _
   > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing lis= t
   > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
   > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
   "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.= org"
   ___
   freebsd-pe= rforma...@freebsd.org mailing list
   http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/l= istinfo/freebsd-performance
   To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd   
-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Michael Larabel]

Any version is fine that's PTS 3.0 or newer in terms of being 
compatible, since the test profiles are versioned separately and 
automatically fetched to match the result file. However, I'd recommended 
the newest (PTS 3.6) as it contains the best FreeBSD support at present 
in terms of hardware/software information parsing (for the automated 
table), etc.


Michael

On 12/20/2011 07:29 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:

Is there a specific version of the test suite that should be used, to
compare against the published results?


Adrian

On 20 December 2011 17:18, Matthew Tippett  wrote:

For such a system, the greatest immediate value would be to attempt to
reproduce the benchmarks in question.

Install PTS from www.phoronix-test-suite.com or freshports.org.

Run the benchmark against those used in the article

phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37

You will be asked to push the comparison up to openbenchmarking at the end.

Matthew


On 12/20/2011 01:39 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:

On 12/20/11 21:20, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:

Interestingly, while people seem to be (arguably rightly) focused on
criticising Phoronix's benchmarking, nobody has offered an alternative
benchmark; and while (again, arguably rightly) it is important to
benchmark real world performance, equally, nobody has offered any
numbers in relation to, for example, HTTP or SMTP, or any other "real
world"-application torture tests done on the aforementioned two
platforms... IMO, this just goes to show that "doing is hard" and
"criticising is much easier" (yes, I am aware of the irony involved in
making this statement, but someone has to!)


Cheers,
Igor M :-)

Unfortunately, M. Larabel is the only one who's performing benchmarks on
FreeBSD, comparing its performance to the Linux-opponents. Adn indeed,
there is a lot of criticism, but no alternative.
I said unfortunately - not offensive - since Larabel and Phoronix are
sadly the only ones who do actually such bechmarking.

It would be much more nicer and kind to support those people.

Well, in January/February we get new hardware. One box is supposed to do
number crunching via 12 cores and a TESLA GPU. My colleague is
developing a high parallelized peice of software for satellite data
transformation. The software package is CPU bound, partially GPU, but
massively memory hungry (96 to 128 GB RAM is needed).
What I can offer is, since I will also work on that machine and I've
free hand to administer, in the spare time of doing my PhD, installing
FreeBSD 9.0/10.0 besides SuSe Linux and looking forward having one ZFS
data storage drive for homes, so both systems can perform on a most
recent ZFS. I'm new to Linux, not a BSD guru, nor I'm a professional
programmer/developer. My skills are sufficient for the daily scientific
work. So, without pressure, I'm willing to perform some HPC benchmarks
under advice if the day comes and those interested in bare numbers of
FreeBSD vs. Linux performance with a real-world-scientific application.

I would appreciate to see some of the developers and/or FreeBSD hackers
to help Phoronix setting up a proper testenvironment instead of bashing
M. Larabel and his fellows.

Regards,
Oliver


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"



___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Is the svn2cvs gateway down ?

[Doug Barton]

On 12/20/2011 02:01, Claude Buisson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It seems (from my own csup's and cvswe.cgi) that the src commits are lost,
> starting with r228697 Sun Dec 18 22:04:55 2011)

Yeah, my warning 2 days ago that this was going to happen seems to have
gone un-heeded. :)  I'm sure you can take bz' word that it's being
looked at now though.


Doug

-- 

[^L]

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Ian Smith]

[performance@ & current@ ccs trimmed, I'm not subscribed.  Feel free ..]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
 > 2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov :
 > > Hello, Samuel.
 > > You wrote 15 ÿÿ 2011 ÿÿ., 16:32:47:
 > >
 > >> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
 > >> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
 > >> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating this
 > >> garbage. (Yes, I have been down this rabbit hole).

I downloaded the sources the other night, poked around a bit trying to 
suss out the test environment and FreeBSD dependencies.  Gobs of PHP and 
shell scripts for those with time on their hands, but I concentrated on 
*BSD installation and such for a couple of hours.  Observations below.

 > >  Here is one problem: we have choice from three items:
 > >
 > > (1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" FreeBSD

Or use benchmarks and kernel tuning to suit, where FreeBSD can shine :)

 > > (2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" Phoronix
 > > (communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare
 > > / meaningless, ets)

I've no idea whether GPLv3 really allows us to fix it ourselves, but the
general orientation is entirely Linux, with {free,net}bsd as 'distros', 
so to speak.  No blame there, just so long as that emphasis is clear.

 > > (3) Lose [potential] userbase.
 > >
 > >  You know, that these benchmarks are bad. I know. But potential (and
 > >  even some current!) user doesn't. And it seems, that these benchmarks
 > >  become popular over Internet.
 > >
 > > --
 > > // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov 

Self-selected, like a 'Standard & Poors' of the OS 'market'? :)  People 
who choose OS by fan base have already made their choice, and were never 
'ours' to lose.  Recall the Benchmark Battles between Windows and Linux?

 > Here is where you completely derail the train, let me paste again what
 > I said before.
 > 
 > ...
 > Take the first test as an example, Blogbench read. This doesn't raise
 > any red flags, right? At least not until you realize that Blogbench
 > isn't a read test, it's a read/write test. So what they have done here
 > is run a read/write test and then thrown away the write results for
 > both platforms and reported only the read results. If you dig down
 > into the actual results,
 > http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
 > see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
 > were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
 > writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
 > bad thing when someone totally misrepresents benchmark results.
 > ...
 > 
 > FreeBSD actually does _BETTER_ (subjectively) in this test than the
 > Linux system when you look at what is really going on. FreeBSD is
 > favoring writes, which is _GOOD_. FreeBSD does not need to be fixed,
 > the benchmarks need to be fixed to represent reality rather than
 > throwing half of the results in the trash. To be quite frank, "fixing"
 > FreeBSD to look good on this benchmark will make it a worse real-world
 > OS. But you guys go ahead and foot-shoot over these ridiculous
 > benchmarks all you want.
 > 
 > Sam

I think the notion that installing FreeBSD with no tuning at all for 
particular types of work can give comparable results is flawed, when 
optimising for widely varying types of workload is normally expected.  
Noone expects a database, file or web server, probably headless, to be 
configured anything like the same as, say, a scientific workstation or a 
multimedia box or a high-performance router or ..

I've only installed Linux twice, Debian Etch and Lenny.  I soon gave up 
trying to install Lenny sans X and Gnome.  I'm sure it can be done, by 
fighting the line of least resistance.  My point is that out of the box, 
basic configuration and (I suspect) tuning of FreeBSD and Linux systems 
has quite a different emphasis, and likely expected workload/s.

One thing I'd like to see is even 'ps -auxww' listings of these setups 
while actually running these tests.  Not only PHP and X but all sorts of 
stuff gets installed and some are presumed to be running on top of the 
benchmarks per se, NetBSD even having a jdk dependency; I was a little 
unnerved to see the substantial list of packages to install seen in:

./pts-core/external-test-dependencies/xml/freebsd-packages.xml

presumably, where the listed executables are not found, installed by:

./pts-core/external-test-dependencies/scripts/install-freebsd-packages.sh:
#!/bin/sh
# FreeBSD package installation
echo "Please enter your root password below:" 1>&2
su root -c 
"PACKAGESITE=\"ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-7-stable/Latest/\";
 pkg_add -r $*"
exit

Hmm.  Would the 'ordinary user' of this software be expected to notice 
and adjust PACKAGESITE for later versions?  I admit to not having read 
the substantial docs 

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Michael Larabel]

   On 12/20/2011 11:22 PM, Ian Smith wrote:

[performance@ & current@ ccs trimmed, I'm not subscribed.  Feel free ..]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
 > 2011/12/19 Lev Serebryakov [1]:
 > > Hello, Samuel.
 > > You wrote 15 ÿÿ 2011 ÿÿ., 16:32:47:
 > >
 > >> Other benchmarks in the Phoronix suite and their representations are
 > >> similarly flawed, _ALL_ of these results should be ignored and no time
 > >> should be wasted by any FreeBSD committer further evaluating this
 > >> garbage. (Yes, I have been down this rabbit hole).

I downloaded the sources the other night, poked around a bit trying to
suss out the test environment and FreeBSD dependencies.  Gobs of PHP and
shell scripts for those with time on their hands, but I concentrated on
*BSD installation and such for a couple of hours.  Observations below.

 > >  Here is one problem: we have choice from three items:
 > >
 > > (1) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" FreeBSD

Or use benchmarks and kernel tuning to suit, where FreeBSD can shine :)

 > > (2) Make FreeBSD looks good on benchmarks by "fixing" Phoronix
 > > (communication with them, convincing, that they benchamrks are unfare
 > > / meaningless, ets)

I've no idea whether GPLv3 really allows us to fix it ourselves, but the
general orientation is entirely Linux, with {free,net}bsd as 'distros',
so to speak.  No blame there, just so long as that emphasis is clear.

 > > (3) Lose [potential] userbase.
 > >
 > >  You know, that these benchmarks are bad. I know. But potential (and
 > >  even some current!) user doesn't. And it seems, that these benchmarks
 > >  become popular over Internet.
 > >
 > > --
 > > // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov [2]

Self-selected, like a 'Standard & Poors' of the OS 'market'? :)  People
who choose OS by fan base have already made their choice, and were never
'ours' to lose.  Recall the Benchmark Battles between Windows and Linux?

 > Here is where you completely derail the train, let me paste again what
 > I said before.
 >
 > ...
 > Take the first test as an example, Blogbench read. This doesn't raise
 > any red flags, right? At least not until you realize that Blogbench
 > isn't a read test, it's a read/write test. So what they have done here
 > is run a read/write test and then thrown away the write results for
 > both platforms and reported only the read results. If you dig down
 > into the actual results,
 > [3]http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1112113-AR-ORACLELIN37 -- you will
 > see two Blogbench numbers, one for read and another for write. These
 > were both taken from the same Blogbench run, so FreeBSD optimizes
 > writes over reads, that's probably a good thing for your data but a
 > bad thing when someone totally misrepresents benchmark results.
 > ...
 >
 > FreeBSD actually does _BETTER_ (subjectively) in this test than the
 > Linux system when you look at what is really going on. FreeBSD is
 > favoring writes, which is _GOOD_. FreeBSD does not need to be fixed,
 > the benchmarks need to be fixed to represent reality rather than
 > throwing half of the results in the trash. To be quite frank, "fixing"
 > FreeBSD to look good on this benchmark will make it a worse real-world
 > OS. But you guys go ahead and foot-shoot over these ridiculous
 > benchmarks all you want.
 >
 > Sam

I think the notion that installing FreeBSD with no tuning at all for
particular types of work can give comparable results is flawed, when
optimising for widely varying types of workload is normally expected.
Noone expects a database, file or web server, probably headless, to be
configured anything like the same as, say, a scientific workstation or a
multimedia box or a high-performance router or ..

I've only installed Linux twice, Debian Etch and Lenny.  I soon gave up
trying to install Lenny sans X and Gnome.  I'm sure it can be done, by
fighting the line of least resistance.  My point is that out of the box,
basic configuration and (I suspect) tuning of FreeBSD and Linux systems
has quite a different emphasis, and likely expected workload/s.

One thing I'd like to see is even 'ps -auxww' listings of these setups
while actually running these tests.  Not only PHP and X but all sorts of
stuff gets installed and some are presumed to be running on top of the
benchmarks per se, NetBSD even having a jdk dependency; I was a little
unnerved to see the substantial list of packages to install seen in:

./pts-core/external-test-dependencies/xml/freebsd-packages.xml

presumably, where the listed executables are not found, installed by:

./pts-core/external-test-dependencies/scripts/install-freebsd-packages.sh:
#!/bin/sh
# FreeBSD package installation
echo "Please enter your root password below:" 1>&2
su root -c "PACKAGESITE=\[4]"ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packa
ges-7-stable/Latest/\" pkg_add -r $*"
exit

   This file isn't even used at present in the Phoronix Test Suite but if
   there is a needed external dependency the user is promp

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

[Stefan Esser]

Am 21.12.2011 06:22, schrieb Ian Smith:
> I find the results on this page very strange, but perhaps indicative:
> 
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=debian_kfreebsd_h210&num=1
> 
> Here we see scant difference in results between Debian running FreeBSD 
> 7.3 or 8.0 or Linux 2.6.32 kernels, yet native FreeBSD 7.3 and 8.0 
> installations apparently run far slower, especially on the gzip test!

You did not expect this, since all user space programs were compiled
from identical sources, as were FreeBSD and kFreeBSD (probably with
minimal deviations in kFreeBSD, which should not affect the results)?

> Does this imply that given the similar kernel speed, Debian GNU userland 
> performs so dramatically better than FreeBSD userland?  Or does it 
> perhaps point to the default tuning of the FreeBSD systems compared to 
> (here) Debian, for these particular tests?  Indeed, `which gzip`?

Well, the answer is quite simple: Just run the Linux binaries on FreeBSD
or kFreeBSD (those compiled for testing Linux performance) and I'm
convinced that you'll find that performance significantly improves.

You did notice, that the 7-zip and gzip binaries were built with
gcc-4.4.4 for Linux and with gcc-4.2.1 for FreeBSD?

And another point: The relative advantage between FreeBSD and Linux is
different on R52 and T61. Might it be the case that gcc-4.4.4 has better
knowledge of the newer CPU in the latter (T61, Core 2 Duo) and optimizes
for it, not for the CPU in the R52 (Pentium-M) anymore?

And apparently 7-zip results are less affected by the compiler version
than the gzip results. This also hints at the compiler as the reason for
the better kFreeBSD and Linux results. (7-zip seems to be less dependent
on the better optimization of the newer gcc, or it does not take as much
advantage from it.)

Funny is the finding, that gzip is measured slower on FreeBSD 7.3 than
8.0 on the Pentium-M, while it is faster on 7.3 on the Core 2 Duo. That
does not match my expectations at all ...

There are no technical reasons, that FreeBSD does not come with a newer
GCC, as probably all in this list know. But OTOH, the newer GCC versions
can easily be installed from a port or package, and thus it would not
have been impossible to compare native binaries compiled with the same
compiler version for all test cases.

> And yes, FreeBSD could sure use some sort of tuning 'profiles' mechanism 
> to be able to preconfigure systems for at least several vastly different 
> types of workload.  Nate Lawson used to talk about this, then in respect 
> to simple 'laptop vs desktop' scenarios, but we've since seen volumes 
> written, mostly in lists but some wikis, parts of the Handbook, guides 
> for performance tuning etc, scarcely accessible to J. Random Installer.  
> A set of tunings for these Phoronix benchmarks might be a good start?

I doubt that tuning is responsible, because kFreeBSD performed better
(with the test programs compiled with gcc-4.4.4). The benchmark measured
just that, the better optimization of the newer gcc version.

Install the port (perhaps an even later gcc version, gcc-4.5 is said to
generate even better code than gcc-4.4) and make it the default compiler
for ports, if you want to take advantage of the more advanced compiler.
The FreeBSD ports system makes that very easy.

BTW: Why don't we build binary packages with a later version of gcc than
what is in the system. This should not cause any GPLv3 violation, and we
could have the userland built with the compiler giving best performance ...

Regards, Stefan
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"