On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, 15:49-0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I just noticed, that uploading a file over a LANG (at around
> 5.7Mb/s) resulted in around 25% CPU consumption by the ftpd.
>
> I think, that's unusual for a Pentium4 -- what is the process doing?
Check the client does not use ascii
Kevin Downey wrote:
I am running a generic kernel with all the debugging knobs.
if I use BitTorrent or Gnutella in X the computer reboots after a few minutes.
From the console it drops into the debugger deal. But will not give me
a crash dump.
The stack trace below isn't a crash, it's just wi
> > I just noticed, that uploading a file over a LANG (at around
> > 5.7Mb/s) resulted in around 25% CPU consumption by the ftpd.
> >
> > I think, that's unusual for a Pentium4 -- what is the process doing?
>
> Check the client does not use ascii mode when uploading (getc() vs
> read()).
That's q
I am running a generic kernel with all the debugging knobs.
if I use BitTorrent or Gnutella in X the computer reboots after a few minutes.
>From the console it drops into the debugger deal. But will not give me
a crash dump.
Under the assumption that something was wrong with the ath driver I
tried
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 13:48, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 August 2005 11:16, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:54:21AM -0700, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > > I'm getting the following panic on my RELENG_6 test box:
> > >
> > > xl1f0: BUG: if_attach called without if_
> I haven't fully explored all applications and possible tie-ins with
> jails, virtual stacks etc. but it looks very interesting.
>
> For example I want to have multiple routing tables within the same
> stack. These routing tables can be opaque or fall-through and match
> on the source and destina
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 11:16, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:54:21AM -0700, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > I'm getting the following panic on my RELENG_6 test box:
> >
> > xl1f0: BUG: if_attach called without if_alloc'd input()
> >
> > Where should I be looking to track this down
Hi!
I just noticed, that uploading a file over a LANG (at around 5.7Mb/s) resulted
in around 25% CPU consumption by the ftpd.
I think, that's unusual for a Pentium4 -- what is the process doing?
The machine is running 5.2.1-RELEASE and has TrustedBSD extensions.
-mi
___
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:54:21AM -0700, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> I'm getting the following panic on my RELENG_6 test box:
>
> xl1f0: BUG: if_attach called without if_alloc'd input()
>
> Where should I be looking to track this down? I suspect it has to do with a
> custom kernel, it wasn't doi
Marko Zec wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 09 August 2005 14:41, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> ...
> > I don't want to have non-global interface lists in the kernel.
>
> But sooner or later you _will_ end up with some sort of non-global
> interface lists after all, just as you stated yourself at the beginning
>
I'm getting the following panic on my RELENG_6 test box:
xl1f0: BUG: if_attach called without if_alloc'd input()
Where should I be looking to track this down? I suspect it has to do with a
custom kernel, it wasn't doing it when i was running GENERIC
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies C
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 14:41, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Marko Zec wrote:
> > On Monday 08 August 2005 18:47, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > Marko Zec wrote:
> > > > On Monday 08 August 2005 12:32, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> > > > > There is a patch doing that for FreeBSD 4.x. However while
> > >
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:34:53PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> Could you add a hard-coded entry to WITNESS to place the udpinp lock
> before the in_multi_mtx in the lock order, and let me know which path
> resulted in the opposite order from this one?
I hard-coded the correct order, but am now
(maintainers or effective maintainers of the affected device drivers CC'd
-- see below for the details, sorry about dups)
I've recently been reviewing the use of if_flags with respect to network
stack and driver locking. Part of that work has been to break the field
out into two separate fi
Marko Zec wrote:
>
> On Monday 08 August 2005 18:47, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > Marko Zec wrote:
> > > On Monday 08 August 2005 12:32, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > > Dave+Seddon wrote:
> > > > > BTW, I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on multiple IP
> > > > > stacks on FreeBSD. It would
Dave+Seddon wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Itâs very cool to hear you guys are interested in separate routing.
>
> > Having multiple stacks duplicates a lot of structures for each stack
> > which don't have to be duplicated. With your approach you need a new
> > jail for every new stack. In each
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 11:04, Marko Zec wrote:
> On Monday 08 August 2005 18:47, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> Andre,
>
> there's no doubt almost any idea or particularly software can be
> improved. Could you provide a more elaborate argumentation to your
> claim the network stack cloning conc
On Monday 08 August 2005 18:47, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Marko Zec wrote:
> > On Monday 08 August 2005 12:32, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > Dave+Seddon wrote:
> > > > BTW, I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on multiple IP
> > > > stacks on FreeBSD. It would be really cool to be able to giv
18 matches
Mail list logo
