I've recently installworld my test setup and found bind tools: dig, host hangs
during usage (latest bind 9.8.2 in -CURRENT base. The same with named too.
Replacing /lib/libthr.so.3 with previous build (26 march) eliminates the
problem.
backtrace every time the same:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00080123a
09.04.2012 19:37, Gavin Atkinson пишет:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Alex Keda wrote:
FreeBSD bsd-test.moskb.local 9.9-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r234000: Sun
Apr 8 03:02:51 MSK 2012
root@bsd-test.moskb.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
Proliant 320 G4
freeze with Hyper-Threading enabled
on 10/04/2012 11:49 Alex Keda said the following:
> 09.04.2012 19:37, Gavin Atkinson пишет:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Alex Keda wrote:
>>
>>> FreeBSD bsd-test.moskb.local 9.9-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r234000:
>>> Sun
>>> Apr 8 03:02:51 MSK 2012
>>> root@bsd-test.moskb.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/s
Since I have had much trouble starting xdm via /etc/ttys, I tried to
investigate the revision when the bug was introduced and as I wrote in a
former message to the list, since I recompile world almost daily, I saw
the introduction with a commit to sbin/init/init.c.
A subversion diff reveals:
===
gstat don't work after update to 10.0-CURRENT r233947
It don't show any providers, and don't print any errors:
# gstat -b
dT: 1.166s w: 1.000s
L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
#
HDD works via ATA_CAM.
:~> sysctl kern.disks
kern.disks: ada2 ada1 ada0
# camcontr
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:53 +0200
Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:44:02AM -0400, AN wrote:
> > FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #7 r234042: Sun
> > Apr 8 17:36:38 EDT 2012
> > root@FBSD10:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL amd64
> >
> > After a recent update o
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:19:37, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
AY> gstat don't work after update to 10.0-CURRENT r233947
AY> It don't show any providers, and don't print any errors:
AY> # gstat -b
AY> dT: 1.166s w: 1.000s
AY> L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name
AY> #
After
On 2012-03-21, at 6:47, "Andrey V. Elsukov" wrote:
> On 21.03.2012 14:09, Victor Balada Diaz wrote:
>> You would need to modify UFS, or maybe do something like CFS[1]. CFS works
>> as an NFS server and you could modify it to only cipher the needed files.
>>
>> Also you could write a simple FS on
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Daichi GOTO wrote:
Thanks kwhite,
I found an another lock issue. Please try a patch included.
...
Success.
Your latest patch fixes the problem. Thanks!
...keith
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebs
On Monday, April 09, 2012 4:05:29 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:36:08PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, April 09, 2012 3:10:00 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:01:03AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 07, 2012
Thanks a lot to investigate this problem so deeply.
I have, maybe related, a bit strange phenomenon among xdm, too.
I have a bit different setup than others: I'm using modified
x11/gdm/files/gdm.in to launch xdm.
The problem is, when I start xdm manually from ttyvX like this:
exec sudo service x
TB --- 2012-04-10 09:00:01 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-10 09:00:01 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:56:06AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, April 09, 2012 4:05:29 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:36:08PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 09, 2012 3:10:00 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:
Hi,
2012/4/9 Alexander Motin :
> [...]
>
> I have strong feeling that while this test may be interesting for profiling,
> it's own results in first place depend not from how fast scheduler is, but
> from the pipes capacity and other alike things. Can somebody hint me what
> except pipe capacity an
On 04/10/12 19:58, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
2012/4/9 Alexander Motin:
[...]
I have strong feeling that while this test may be interesting for profiling,
it's own results in first place depend not from how fast scheduler is, but
from the pipes capacity and other alike things. Can somebody hint me w
On 04/10/12 20:18, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 04/10/12 19:58, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
2012/4/9 Alexander Motin:
[...]
I have strong feeling that while this test may be interesting for
profiling,
it's own results in first place depend not from how fast scheduler
is, but
from the pipes capacity and
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 04/10/12 20:18, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>
>> On 04/10/12 19:58, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> 2012/4/9 Alexander Motin:
[...]
I have strong feeling that while this test may be interesting for
profiling,
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:38:35 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:56:06AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, April 09, 2012 4:05:29 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 03:36:08PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 09, 2012
On 04/10/12 21:46, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 04/10/12 20:18, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 04/10/12 19:58, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
2012/4/9 Alexander Motin:
I have strong feeling that while this test may be interesting for
profiling,
it's own
Hi Oliver,
* O. Hartmann , 20120410 11:37:
> Reverting init.c back to its previous state seems to make the error go away.
Sorry about that. I added the O_NONBLOCK to prevent init(8) from
possibly getting stuck if the TTY used by /dev/console were to misbehave
by not setting CLOCAL.
It seems
On 10/04/2012 02:45, Daichi GOTO wrote:
Hi,
From the DTrace tutorial at AsiaBSDCon 2012, it is a CDDL
license issue.
Hi Daichi,
I wonder which clause/aspect of the license is a problem?
We've been distributing dtrace as part of our source since FreeBSD 7.1
so the terms of license must have b
I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
to be a similar issue on the loopback.
Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
the flood version invokes a non-blocking select.
On the other hand, ping
On 4/10/12 3:52 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
to be a similar issue on the loopback.
Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
the flood version invokes a non
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> CPU cache?
> Cx states?
> powerd?
powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
> sysctl -a | grep cx
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: C1
dev.cpu.0.cx_supported: C1/1 C2/80 C3/104
which shouldn't take so much. S
CPU cache?
Cx states?
powerd?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 03:40:27PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 4/10/12 3:52 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
> > to be a similar issue on the loopback.
> >
> > Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:14:07 +0100
Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> On 10/04/2012 02:45, Daichi GOTO wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > From the DTrace tutorial at AsiaBSDCon 2012, it is a CDDL
> > license issue.
>
> Hi Daichi,
> I wonder which clause/aspect of the license is a problem?
I do not know well. And I
TB --- 2012-04-10 23:34:24 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-10 23:34:24 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-04-10 22:29:05 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-10 22:29:05 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-04-10 22:40:57 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-10 22:40:57 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-04-11 02:21:59 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-11 02:21:59 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:52:57AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I noticed this first on a 10G interface, but now there seems
> to be a similar issue on the loopback.
>
> Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
> delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-11 01:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:36:45PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> * O. Hartmann , 20120410 11:37:
> > Reverting init.c back to its previous state seems to make the error go away.
>
> Sorry about that. I added the O_NONBLOCK to prevent init(8) from
> possibly
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 02:47:37PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:38:35 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:56:06AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 09, 2012 4:05:29 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 0
37 matches
Mail list logo
