Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 03:37, Alexander Best wrote:
>> On Mon Apr 25 11, Steve Wills wrote:
>> I've noticed lately that when doing heavy IO, my 9-CURRENT system (Fri
>> Apr 15 23:33:46 EDT 2011) is quite unresponsive. I have two ZFS mirrors
>> setup and run KDE4. The system has 12GB of
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:26:05AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> Actually, I think we should switch GENERIC in HEAD to the new client and
> kernel very soon. The goal is to get current users testing the new client
> and
> server so they can uncover any bugs. If problems crop up during the testi
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any impact on /usr/sbin/amd?
> >
> I'll admit I haven't tested it (I've never used the FreeBSD amd). I will
> do so once I figure out how to set it up, but I'm hoping others will report
> any problems. If you c
On 04/26/2011 03:37, Alexander Best wrote:
On Mon Apr 25 11, Steve Wills wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed lately that when doing heavy IO, my 9-CURRENT system (Fri
Apr 15 23:33:46 EDT 2011) is quite unresponsive. I have two ZFS mirrors
setup and run KDE4. The system has 12GB of RAM.
When I, for example,
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:59:49PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > The commit r221124 switches the default NFS client to the new one in
> > head.
> > The fstype "newnfs" is now "nfs" and the regular/old NFS client is
> > now fstype "oldnfs". As such, "mount -t nfs ..." will use the new
> > client.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:59:49PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> The commit r221124 switches the default NFS client to the new one in head.
> The fstype "newnfs" is now "nfs" and the regular/old NFS client is
> now fstype "oldnfs". As such, "mount -t nfs ..." will use the new client.
Hi,
Is there
Yes Mike, already have had a couple others bug me to get the MFC, I'm hoping
to get it in this week :)
Jack
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 4/27/2011 2:45 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> >> Are you testing with what is in HEAD ? ie. 7.2.3 or something else ?
> >> Your sub
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 03:07 am, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 26/04/2011 20:49 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> > Can you please test attached patch? You can get it from here,
> > too:
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/tsc_smp_test.diff
>
> I am planning on testing the patch, but I am a lit
On 4/27/2011 2:45 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>> Are you testing with what is in HEAD ? ie. 7.2.3 or something else ?
>> Your subject line implies something else.
>
> I'm using what's in HEAD since r219753, the commit which updated the
> em driver from version 7.1.9 to 7.2.2 and broke it at least fo
2011/4/27 Mike Tancsa :
> On 4/27/2011 2:35 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>> 2011/4/27 Jack Vogel :
>>> If you get "cannot setup receive structures" you cannot go on and try to
>>> use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
>>> your receive side, you simply have to increase it
On 4/27/2011 2:35 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2011/4/27 Jack Vogel :
>> If you get "cannot setup receive structures" you cannot go on and try to
>> use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
>> your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the driver.
>
> T
2011/4/27 Jack Vogel :
> If you get "cannot setup receive structures" you cannot go on and try to
> use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
> your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the driver.
Thanks for your answer. I'll try and let you know if t
The commit r221124 switches the default NFS client to the new one in head.
The fstype "newnfs" is now "nfs" and the regular/old NFS client is
now fstype "oldnfs". As such, "mount -t nfs ..." will use the new client.
Although most kernels will still work with the old mount(8) and
mount_nfs(8) binar
If you get "cannot setup receive structures" you cannot go on and try to
use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the driver.
Jack
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2011/3/31 Jack Vo
On 04/27/11 02:37, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 25.04.2011 14:38, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
I wrote a small extension for the GEOM_PART class. It adds an ability
to GEOM_PART class to create partition labels for schemes which are
support them.
Currently we have GEOM_LABEL class which does similar
2011/3/31 Jack Vogel :
> This problem happens for only one reason, you have insufficient mbufs to
> fill your rx ring. Its odd that it would differ when its static versus a
> loadable
> module though!
>
> With the 7.2.2 driver you also will use different mbuf pools depending on
> the MTU you are us
FreeBSD Quarterly Status Report January-March, 2011
Introduction
This report covers FreeBSD-related projects between January and March
2011. It is the first of the four reports planned for 2011. During this
quarter, the work was focused on releasing the new minor versions of
FreeBSD,
On 25.04.2011 14:38, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> I wrote a small extension for the GEOM_PART class. It adds an ability
> to GEOM_PART class to create partition labels for schemes which are
> support them.
>
> Currently we have GEOM_LABEL class which does similar functions,
> but it has problems in
on 26/04/2011 20:49 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> Can you please test attached patch? You can get it from here, too:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/tsc_smp_test.diff
I am planning on testing the patch, but I am a little bit busy with other things
at the moment.
The idea looks good to m
19 matches
Mail list logo
