On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 at 1:40:27 +0100, Brian Somers wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 9:39:36 +0100, Brian Somers wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
> This box averages
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 16:38:33 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010327 16:21] wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 17:59:23 -0500, Brandon Gale wrote:
> Do you think it'd be worth it to have vinum carp about what may
> be a non optimal stripe size
* Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010327 16:21] wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 17:59:23 -0500, Brandon Gale wrote:
> >>> Do you think it'd be worth it to have vinum carp about what may
> >>> be a non optimal stripe size?
> >>>
> >>> "Warning N is probably a bad idea for a stripe size, see
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 9:39:36 +0100, Brian Somers wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> >>> [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
> >>> This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Average file
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 15:15:17 -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:16:53PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> No, there's no requirement for it to be a prime number. The only
>> problem is that with 32 MB cylinder groups and a power of two stripe
>> size and subdisk count, yo
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 17:59:23 -0500, Brandon Gale wrote:
>>> Do you think it'd be worth it to have vinum carp about what may
>>> be a non optimal stripe size?
>>>
>>> "Warning N is probably a bad idea for a stripe size, see docs"
>>
>> Only if it can recognize the fact correctly.
>
> How
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 9:39:36 +0100, Brian Somers wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
>>> [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
>>> This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Average file size is about 4K
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:16:53PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> No, there's no requirement for it to be a prime number. The only
> problem is that with 32 MB cylinder groups and a power of two stripe
> size and subdisk count, you end up with all the superblocks on one
> subdisk,
The change I made
:> Do you think it'd be worth it to have vinum carp about what may
:> be a non optimal stripe size?
:>
:> "Warning N is probably a bad idea for a stripe size, see docs"
:
:Only if it can recognize the fact correctly.
How about even having vinum recommend something?
Brandon
To Unsubscribe: se
Greg Lehey([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:07:09PM +0930:
> One of the reasons this question came up is because dumps weren't
> enabled. If they had been, we would have seen the problem. That's
> why I'd recommend at least as much swap as memory, even if it doesn't
> get touched.
when
On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 at 0:05:03 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010326 23:47] wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
>>> [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
>>> This box averages 30.0 load with
> On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> > [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
> > This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
> >
> >
> >
> > Average file size is about 4K. /home/bbsusers* is on a vinum
> > stripe'd volume with 3 Ultra1
* Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010326 23:47] wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> > [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
> > This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
> >
> >
> >
> > Average file size is about 4K. /home/bb
On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:11:44 -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
> This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
>
>
>
> Average file size is about 4K. /home/bbsusers* is on a vinum
> stripe'd volume with 3 Ultra160 9G 1RPM d
On Tuesday, 20 March 2001 at 11:04:16 -0800, Matt Dillon wrote:
>>> SWAP is never touched. :)
>>>
>>> last pid: 23395; load averages: 2.08, 2.92, 3.60up 0+01:29:58 02:03:27
>>> 1529 processes:24 running, 1505 sleeping
>>> CPU states: 40.5% user, 0.0% nice, 46.4% system, 1.1% interrupt,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:50:51AM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote:
> One thing that comes to mind is that you can smarthost your outgoing
> email to another host so the queues don't build up. This should
> greatly reduce mail load. In fact, I would recommend offloading email
> entirely
* Paul Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 13:02] wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> > :We have 'vmstat 5' available at http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/
> > :Fresh hot vmstat 1 log at
> > :http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/vmstat_1.log
> >
> > I usually don't increase 'maxu
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :We have 'vmstat 5' available at http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/
> :Fresh hot vmstat 1 log at
> :http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/vmstat_1.log
>
> I usually don't increase 'maxusers' above 256 myself, but
> 512 should be fine. Everything else
:> SWAP is never touched. :)
:>
:> last pid: 23395; load averages: 2.08, 2.92, 3.60up 0+01:29:58 02:03:27
:> 1529 processes:24 running, 1505 sleeping
:> CPU states: 40.5% user, 0.0% nice, 46.4% system, 1.1% interrupt, 12.0% idle
:> Mem: 705M Active, 1369M Inact, 332M Wired, 99M Cache,
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
:
:SWAP is never touched. :)
Your vmstat output shows page out activity. I can't tell if it's to swap or
to file backed memory, but it's happening. You know this isn't happening
when your box blows up?
:
:last pid: 23395; load averages: 2.08, 2.92
:We have 'vmstat 5' available at http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/
:Fresh hot vmstat 1 log at
:http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/vmstat_1.log
:
:--
:+---+
:| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Your vmstat output indi
* Michael C . Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 10:27] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:50:51AM -0800, Matt Dillon scribbled:
>
> sysctl -a always crashes the system. It happens on other similiarly
> loaded BBS'es in Taiwan.
WHY ARE THERE NO TRACEBACKS BEING POSTED TO THE LISTS?
THIS IS THE WH
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:50:51AM -0800, Matt Dillon scribbled:
| One thing that comes to mind is that you can smarthost your outgoing
| email to another host so the queues don't build up. This should
| greatly reduce mail load. In fact, I would recommend offloading email
| enti
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:03:14PM -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:48:37AM -0800, Ted Faber scribbled:
> | Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how much swap is there on
> | this machine? Is the combination of the packed MFS and high process
> | load exhausting y
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:48:37AM -0800, Ted Faber scribbled:
| On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:38:18AM -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
| > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:27:17AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein scribbled:
| > | * Michael C . Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 09:11] wrote:
| > | > Physical memory is 2.5
:md0/MFS is used for caching the articles that BBS users read.
:They often read the same articles over and over again,
:and we find that a 128MB MFS/md0 will have 70% hitrate
:
:When our MFS/md0 fills up after long usage, the box easily
:dies. (We crontab clean the mfs, but sometimes the load
:sh
One thing that comes to mind is that you can smarthost your outgoing
email to another host so the queues don't build up. This should
greatly reduce mail load. In fact, I would recommend offloading email
entirely if possible... email always hits disks hard.
Definitely get rid
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:38:18AM -0600, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:27:17AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein scribbled:
> | * Michael C . Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 09:11] wrote:
> | > Physical memory is 2.5 GB. We do MFS and it croaks/crashes
> | > at midnight, our peak load
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 09:27:17AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein scribbled:
| * Michael C . Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 09:11] wrote:
| > [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
| > This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
|
| cool..
|
FreeBSD zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw 4.2-STAB
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote:
: :This box is rather a FreeBSD advocacate itself, as you will see why.
Indeed.
:
:It runs an self-wrote PERL SMTP daemon. (Sendmail and Postfix croaks)
How do sendmail and postfix croak? How much mail are you transporting? If
you really can't use
* Michael C . Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 09:11] wrote:
> [Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
> This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
cool..
> system stats at
> http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/
Where's the crashdump/traceback?
> Physical memory is 2.5 G
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:11:44AM -0600, Michael C . Wu scribbled:
| system stats at
| http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/
| It runs an self-wrote PERL SMTP daemon. (Sendmail and Postfix croaks)
| SMTPD pipes the mail to "bbsmail" that delivers the mail to
| BBS users. SMTPd averages about
$
[Lengthy email, bear with me please, it is quite interesting.
This box averages 30.0 load with no problems.]
system stats at
http://zoo.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~keichii/
Hello Everyone,
I have a friend who admins a very heavily loaded BBS server.
(In Taiwan, BBS'es are still very popular, because they
33 matches
Mail list logo
