Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Uwe Doering
Adrian Chadd wrote: On 15/02/2008, Uwe Doering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Have you tried sorting this list alphabetically? Believe it or not, when I tried to use Apache 1.3.x with PHP 5.2.x with extensions in arbitrary order I got inexplicable crashes, too. Ah, stuff like "apache-ssl init's

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Kris Kennaway
Kris Kennaway wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Brett Bump wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote: We are going to need more information about your system. What do you mean by "peak activity"? What is running on the system when it performs badly (check top -S, ps, gstat, vmstat -w, vm

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Aleksey Perov
Kris Kennaway wrote: > I checked with the developer, and no-one running 6.x and quotas ever > replied to multiple requests to test the patch. It can be found here if > you want to resolve this performance problem without upgrading to 7.0: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/quotagiant/quotas-RE

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Mike Tancsa
At 05:27 PM 2/14/2008, Brett Bump wrote: stat doesn't show as much as gstat and iostat. Gstat alwasy shows my drive with /var/mail being 97-100% busy and iostat will always show hi tps rates, but never anything above 8MB/s (4.10 gave me 30MB/s+). If a lot of users are checking mail at once, t

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Brett Bump
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote: > I checked with the developer, and no-one running 6.x and quotas ever > replied to multiple requests to test the patch. It can be found here if > you want to resolve this performance problem without upgrading to 7.0: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Brett Bump
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Uwe Doering wrote: > Have you tried sorting this list alphabetically? Believe it or not, > when I tried to use Apache 1.3.x with PHP 5.2.x with extensions in > arbitrary order I got inexplicable crashes, too. > > Now, of course it was just a coincidence that it worked for m

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Brett Bump
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Mike Tancsa wrote: > >Dell PowerEdge 1750 1U, 146Gig U320s. The Broadcoms seem to be a change > >from the earlier 1550s with intel pro/100s (I prefer the intel's). > > So this is not the same hardware as before that was running releng_4 ? Yes, it is actually the same physi

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Dieter
> > >Dell PowerEdge 1750 1U, 146Gig U320s. The Broadcoms seem to be a change > > >from the earlier 1550s with intel pro/100s (I prefer the intel's). > > > > So this is not the same hardware as before that was running releng_4 ? > > Yes, it is actually the same physical box. > this one has me baf

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Bruce Walker
Quoting Brett Bump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The mail server started life > on a PowerEdge 1550 1U with intel nics, but was rapidly running out of > storage. We had a backup 1750 for the content management system so put > 4.10 on it and then just copied the users (about 8k of them) and their > fil

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Kris Kennaway
Brett Bump wrote: Possilby the weekend project will be setting up the backup with 6.3 to switch everything over to that. The first thing you need to do is either disable quotas or apply the patch (maybe in conjunction with the 6.3 upgrade). That *is* the cause of at least some of your perfo

Re: System perforamance 4.x vs. 5.x and 6.x

2008-02-15 Thread Kris Kennaway
Aleksey Perov wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: I checked with the developer, and no-one running 6.x and quotas ever replied to multiple requests to test the patch. It can be found here if you want to resolve this performance problem without upgrading to 7.0: http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/quotag