On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 03:27:53PM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> The problem that FreeBSD has small KVA space: only 2G even on amd64 32G
> machines.
>
> So with
>
> vm.kmem_size=1G
> # 64M KVA
> kern.maxbcache=64M
> # 4M KVA
> kern.ipc.maxpipekva=4M
>
>
> I can use something like this:
>
> # 25
em has the natural limitations
> on it's traffic ceiling of two T1s on two NICs and a 3rd LAN NIC
> fielding continuous round-robin mysql replication and rsync style
> mirroring. It uses two bge interfaces and one server type em
> interface. It's always troubled me that the z
ding
continuous round-robin mysql replication and rsync style mirroring.
It uses two bge interfaces and one server type em interface.
It's always troubled me that the zonelimit issues have always been
associated with higher volume circuits (in what I've read). But since
our issue is very di
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 05:16:28PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:46:00 +0900,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > At Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:32:25 +0100 (BST),
> > rwatson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am wondering
At Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:46:00 +0900,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:32:25 +0100 (BST),
> rwatson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > I am wondering why this patch was never committed?
> > >
> > > http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/
At Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:32:25 +0100 (BST),
rwatson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I am wondering why this patch was never committed?
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/patch-zonelimit-workaround
> >
> > It does seem to address an issue I'm seeing whe
At Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:53:49 -0700,
Chris Pratt wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Chris Pratt wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn't 7.0 fix this? I'd like to see an official definitive
> >> answer and all I've been going on is that the problem desc
On Apr 20, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Chris Pratt wrote:
Doesn't 7.0 fix this? I'd like to see an official definitive
answer and all I've been going on is that the problem description
is no longer in the errata.
Unfortunately, bugs of this sort don't rea
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Chris Pratt wrote:
Doesn't 7.0 fix this? I'd like to see an official definitive answer and all
I've been going on is that the problem description is no longer in the
errata.
Unfortunately, bugs of this sort don't really "work" that way -- specific bugs
are a property of
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am wondering why this patch was never committed?
http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/patch-zonelimit-workaround
It does seem to address an issue I'm seeing where processes get into the
zonelimit state through the use of mbufs (a high speed
George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
[snip]
I believe that a better solution is possible, but it will take more
careful study. One option is to start adding drain routines to UDP
that cause the protocol to drop packets under load, which is the
problem we're seeing. In our tests the server process cann
At Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:40:26 -0700,
Chris Pratt wrote:
>
> I am very interested in this topic as I've been waiting
> since moving from FreeBSD 5 in 2006. The workaround
> in the errata had no effect and the only notice I
> could see of something changing was the errata did
> not include the proble
On Apr 18, 2008, at 3:48 AM, Xin LI wrote:
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering why this patch was never committed? http://
people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/patch-zonelimit-workaround
As its name said, it's a workaround :)
I thought the bug was fixed by several ways, so the ol
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering why this patch was never committed?
http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/patch-zonelimit-workaround
As its name said, it's a workaround :)
I thought the bug was fixed by several ways, so the old bug resurfaced?
It does seem to address
Hi,
I am wondering why this patch was never committed?
http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/misc/patch-zonelimit-workaround
It does seem to address an issue I'm seeing where processes get into
the zonelimit state through the use of mbufs (a high speed UDP packet
receiver) but even after network
15 matches
Mail list logo
