"David E. Cross" writes:
> Looking through the exception.s it appears that on entry to the
> kernel an MP lock is obtained... I thought we had splX(); to
> protect concurancy in the kernel.
Can someone explain to me why is SYSCALL_LOCK necessary ? It certainly
seems to hurt system call performa
I had a 3.2 stable (from 30 May 1999)machine panic tonight, trying
to load the oss driver, which is not too shocking. What was shocking
was the damage done to my filesystem. The automatic fsck failed,
with an UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATES INCONSISTNCY. PARTIALLY ALLOCATED
INODE I=39684.
Running fsck
I have installed 3.0-RELEASE FreeBSD on AMD K6, 233MHz, 128MB, ABit
Motherboard, not overclocked/
Ran this program, got the following results:
5.2u 8.5s 0:14.02 98.3% 5+171k 0+0io 0pf+0w. :-(
-Original Message-
From: Chris Costello
To: David E. Cross
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG ;
fre
> Try a more meaningful benchmark, one that actually does something in
> the kernel before returning, and see how they do. Try calling kill
> or socket/close a few hundred thousand times and see how they do.
Or that horribily impracticle wake-one semantics implemented under
SMP for the accept()
Ok, I am hot on the trail... I have found a comonality(sp?) between at least
2 of the Panics. (the 2 I listed)...
it is as follows:
request: create cp1
request: create cp1
reply: ok
reply: error, file exists
request: lookup
request: lookup
(never any response to those.)
I am guessting that: th
Update, even smaller... 6.5K file, patoot.2 now exists in the same location.
--
David Cross | email: cro...@cs.rpi.edu
Systems Administrator/Research Programmer | Web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~crossd
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860
"Stein B. Sylvarnes" wrote:
>
> At 18:17 10.06.99 -0500, Chris Dillon wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Dennis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> In a nutshell, does anyone have a handle on the relative preformance of
> >> these are?
> >>
> >> 233Mhz P5 vs 233Mhz Celeron
> >Last time I looked, the price differen
Yes, I have determined (just today) that the PANIC is only Solaris, and only
with NFSv3 (It may be posssible with NFSv2, but my program doesn't do it
as quickly.). I have a NFS traffic dump of a mere 19K of all nfs traffic to
the machine before the panic. Also, it does NOT ALWAYS cause a panic.
"David E. Cross" wrote:
>
> Just doing some performance testing and I noticed something rather
> disturbing
>
> Here is the test program:
> int main (void)
> {
> int count=0;
> for(count=0;count <1000;++count)
> getppid();
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> The time o
>So far my conclusions
>have led me to a race in unlink and NFS somewhere (still have no clue where).
>And it is only from Sun clients to date. Also, this started happening in
>ernest arround when we put the latest patches on our Suns (this hadn't been
>mentioned before.) seeing how I can reliably
Yes, it has happened again (twice in fact).
I am desperately trying to find the source of this. So far my conclusions
have led me to a race in unlink and NFS somewhere (still have no clue where).
And it is only from Sun clients to date. Also, this started happening in
ernest arround when we put
David E. Cross was heard to mumble:
> Oops, here is some additional information from my system:
>
I can reproduce this under -CURRENT:
Dual P200MMX running FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT-990528:
fire /home/caesar/src/tmp $ time ./sc
real0m34.695s
user0m20.457s
sys 0m13.850s
Single P200MMX ru
Oops, here is some additional information from my system:
bash-2.02$ cat sc.c
int main (void)
{
int count=0;
for(count=0;count <1000;++count)
getppid();
return 0;
}
bash-2.02$ cc -o sc sc.c
bash-2.02$ uptime
11:19AM up 3 hrs, 4 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.01
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
> Just doing some performance testing and I noticed something rather
> disturbing
>
> Here is the test program:
> int main (void)
> {
> int count=0;
> for(count=0;count <1000;++count)
> getppid();
>
> return 0;
>
Just doing some performance testing and I noticed something rather
disturbing
Here is the test program:
int main (void)
{
int count=0;
for(count=0;count <1000;++count)
getppid();
return 0;
}
The time on linux for this program is ~5 seconds (linux "time" re
You are right, Sheldon...
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I)
And also we have too much work to answer:
But but FreeBSD is not a version of Linux ! Right ?
Sorry Frederic... :P
- Original Message -
From: Sheldon Hearn
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Marius Bendiksen wrote:
> > > at it because the source tree is a consistently moving target.
> > s#moving#wreckless#
> s/wreckless/reckless/.
>
> wreckless is most certainly not true ;)
I hate when I make spelling errors that change the entire message. :<
- bill fumerola -
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 01:55:04PM +0100, Roger Hardiman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to fix
> vm_page_alloc_contig()
> so it can allocate contiguous memory once userland has got up
> and running and memory has been fragmented/filled.
John Dyson answered this about 2 years ago with something
Hi,
Is there a way to fix
vm_page_alloc_contig()
so it can allocate contiguous memory once userland has got up
and running and memory has been fragmented/filled.
I've finished porting the bt848 driver to the newbus framework.
You can load/unload the driver with kldload and kldunload.
Great for
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:47:07 +0200, Nick Hibma wrote:
> What he is also trying to say, without actually saying it, is that you
> might want to check the FreeBSD website for mailing lists that are more
> appropriate, with people that can help you in a better way.
Eeek! Nick, that's not what I wa
What he is also trying to say, without actually saying it, is that you
might want to check the FreeBSD website for mailing lists that are more
appropriate, with people that can help you in a better way.
http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL
freebsd-newbies
freeb
> -Original Message-
> From: Frederic [SMTP:y...@club-internet.fr]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:45 PM
> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
> Cc: Sheldon Hearn
> Subject: Re: Thanks
>
> Sheldon Hearn a écrit:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:34:39 +0200, Frederic wrote:
> >
> > > I a
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:44:53 +0200, Frederic wrote:
> My English is not at the top but in the above of the middle...
> I do not entirely understand your "intellectual" and subtil answer,
Hi Frederic,
I must admit, I didn't expect you to receive my message, since I sent it
directly to the list.
Sheldon Hearn a écrit:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:34:39 +0200, Frederic wrote:
>
> > I am know installing and "giving foods" to a web server
> > powered by FreeBSD and Apache
> [...]
> > But but FreeBSD is not a version of Linux ! Right ?
>
> The headers of the mail don't leave me convinced. I still
Warner Losh said:
> In message <199906102125.oaa28...@mag.ucsd.edu> Bill Huey writes:
> : Yeah, that's problematic and short sighted on their part. It's certainly
> : not a question of expertise from what I've seen since there are very
> : competent technical folks with strong acedemic CS backgroun
Hi,
Recently I added VBI capture support to the Brooktree 848/878 driver
(/dev/vbi0)
This allows Teletext/Videotext capture and viewing.
To complement this I have now added 'vbidecode' and 'videotext' to the
ports
collection /usr/ports/misc
'vbidecode' lets to decode teletext pages and save them
> > at it because the source tree is a consistently moving target.
> s#moving#wreckless#
s/wreckless/reckless/.
wreckless is most certainly not true ;)
- marius -
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> -Original Message-
> From: Frederic [SMTP:y...@club-internet.fr]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 1:35 AM
> To: FreeBSD
> Subject: Thanks
> But but FreeBSD is not a version of Linux ! Right ?
>
[ML] FreeBSD can behave (almost) as Linux as far as Linux
binaries are concerned,
29 matches
Mail list logo
