[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

2012-10-03 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-10-03 01:10:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-10-03 01:10:00 - 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-

[head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

2012-10-03 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-10-03 10:30:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-10-03 10:30:00 - 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-

Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

2012-10-03 Thread Ian FREISLICH
FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote: > cc -c -O -pipe -std=c99 -g -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Wstrict -prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual -Wundef -Wno-pointer-sign -fformat-extensions -Wmissing-include-dirs -fdiagnostics-sh ow-option -nostdinc -I. -I/src

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

2012-10-03 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-10-03 10:30:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-10-03 10:30:00 - 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-

Re: Latest -CURRENT/i386 could not start under VirutalBox 4.1.18 and 4.2 (Windows host): hangs up after atrtc0 detection

2012-10-03 Thread Marek Salwerowicz
W dniu 2012-09-19 22:22, Lev Serebryakov pisze: Hello, Freebsd-current. I've upgraded my FreeBSD-CURRENT Virtual machine, which I use to build router's NanoBSD image, to today's morning (MSK time, GMT+4) revision. Unfortunately, I cannot provide exact version, as sources are in this unb

sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread freebsd
Hi everyone. Actually 65k sockets is incredibly easy to reach. I manage some servers for a very large website, it currently has several http servers clustered to handle daily traffic and this is only dynamic content, static has its own servers, databases also have own servers. We recently starte

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:45 AM, wrote: > Hi everyone. > > Actually 65k sockets is incredibly easy to reach. > > I manage some servers for a very large website, it currently has several > http servers clustered to handle daily traffic and this is only dynamic > content, static has its own servers

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hi, somaxconn is the connection queue depth. If it's sitting at a couple hundred thousand then something else is going crazily wrong. I understand your frustration, but there's a lot of instances where the application just isn't doing things "right" and the OS tries to hide it as much as psosible

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Xin Li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 10/03/12 11:45, free...@chrysalisnet.org wrote: > Hi everyone. > > Actually 65k sockets is incredibly easy to reach. No, this is not kern.ipc.maxsockets. kern.ipc.somaxconn is for "baclkog" and not the maximum connections. Accumulating 64K

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 3 October 2012 13:01, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > Here's where it's being held at 65535 (sys/kern/kern_uipc.c): > > 3276 static int > 3277 sysctl_somaxconn(SYSCTL_HANDLER_ARGS) > 3278 { > 3279 int error; > 3280 int val; > 3281 > 3282 val = somaxconn; > 3283 error =

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 03.10.2012 22:03, Adrian Chadd wrote: Hi, somaxconn is the connection queue depth. If it's sitting at a couple hundred thousand then something else is going crazily wrong. I understand your frustration, but there's a lot of instances where the application just isn't doing things "right" and

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > somaxconn is the connection queue depth. If it's sitting at a couple > hundred thousand then something else is going crazily wrong. > > I understand your frustration, but there's a lot of instances where > the application just isn't doi

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Xin Li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/03/12 13:47, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Adrian Chadd > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> somaxconn is the connection queue depth. If it's sitting at a >> couple hundred thousand then something else is going crazily >> wrong. >>

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Ryan Stone
>> Or the TTL of TCP connections might be too high for the volume of >> connections received. Someone else on net@ reported that changing >> this value to more aggressively reap sockets improved performance >> greatly (at the cost that more connections potentially needing to >> be reestablished and

Re: sysctl kern.ipc.somaxconn limit 65535 why?

2012-10-03 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Ryan Stone wrote: >>> Or the TTL of TCP connections might be too high for the volume of >>> connections received. Someone else on net@ reported that changing >>> this value to more aggressively reap sockets improved performance >>> greatly (at the cost that more con