Hello,
my configuration is
kernel GENERIC
em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=18b
ether 00:19:d1:0f:1c:18
inet 86.49.14.16 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 86.49.14.255
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX )
status: active
and standard "open" ipfw fir
Hi
Pete French wrote:
Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory
this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as
could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot.
RAID card is onboard on these things - how would I c
Stefan Huerter wrote:
Hello
Just testing the new FB 7beta3 - installed from the ISO-images.
System is running on an SCSI 9GB disk, the machine has 750MHz with
512MB Ram and the zfs is using 8 ATA Disks, 4x120GB and 4x160GB
connected to Promise Fasttrak TX2 (with no configs).
Creating the ZFS u
> Thing is that GENERIC as installed out of the box should not take two minutes
> to delete a gig of files off a 15k RPM SAS drive! especially not
> when identical hardware with half the number of processor cores only takes
> eleven seconds to do the same job. Something is wrong somewhere if doubli
Hello
Just testing the new FB 7beta3 - installed from the ISO-images.
System is running on an SCSI 9GB disk, the machine has 750MHz with 512MB
Ram and the zfs is using 8 ATA Disks, 4x120GB and 4x160GB connected to
Promise Fasttrak TX2 (with no configs).
Creating the ZFS using "zpool create tank
> Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory
> this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as
> could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot.
RAID card is onboard on these things - how would I check the dir hash ?
On 26/11/2007 1:33 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:21:36PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I believe the problem is that /etc/rc.d/swap1 is being run before
savecore. I'm guessing that swapon(8) actually destroys/clobbers the
existing saved kernel panic/core data, thus one w
Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory
this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as
could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot.
Regards
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Pete French" <[EMAI
Pete French wrote:
That almost certainly has nothing to do with how many CPUs your system
has, since rm -rf is a single process running on a single core.
Well, yes, common sense would also tell me that. But the systems should
be identical aside from the number of cores. Both installed off 7.0-B
> That almost certainly has nothing to do with how many CPUs your system
> has, since rm -rf is a single process running on a single core.
Well, yes, common sense would also tell me that. But the systems should
be identical aside from the number of cores. Both installed off 7.0-BETA3
CD's today,
> Can you provide more details on this task? It seems like something that
> could easily be reproduced in a lab environment and serve as a regression
> test and baseline for future improvements. Is the server doing any other
> work while doing the rm, or is this it? What kind of directory layout
Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:37:49 -0500
Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a HiFN crypto card and can remember that it was used for ssh
connections with 3des encryption (on 6.1 afair).
But with RELENG_7 it isn't used at all (no interrupts) if I
'ssh -v -c 3des
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Matthieu Bollot wrote:
> My problem is solved \o/
>
> I followed this :
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-usb/2007-March/003144.html
> and that : http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=110989
"me too". The usbdevs patch doesn't apply cleanly but is easy to fix.
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:23 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:23 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:23 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:35 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:41:35 - /
Matt Reimer wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:20 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Reimer wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pete French wrote:
On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad
cores it takes about 3 minutes! T
On Nov 29, 2007 11:20 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Reimer wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Pete French wrote:
> >>> On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad
> >>> cores it takes about 3 minutes! Thi
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:00 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:00 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:13 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 21:02:13 - /
TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:12 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:12 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:12 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:27 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 20:06:27 - /usr/bi
Hello.
After hearing FreeBSD 6.3-RC1 was released, I wanted to upgrade to that from my
6.3-BETA2 installation. This worked fine when I went from 6.2-RELEASE to
6.3-BETA2, but after trying to follow the directions at
http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2007-11-10-freebsd-minor-version-upgrade.html
I
TB --- 2007-11-29 19:46:59 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2007-11-29 19:46:59 - starting RELENG_7 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2007-11-29 19:46:59 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 19:47:14 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2007-11-29 19:47:14 - /usr/bi
On Wednesday 28 November 2007 02:47:11 pm Colin Percival wrote:
> Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> > I am not 100% sure, maybe I overlook something in binary major version
> > upgrade procedure, but after upgrade from 6.2 to 7.0-BETA3 my roots
> > ~/.cshrc was "accidentally" replaced with dist version of
This diff is a partial MFC (picking parts out of -current)
that makes aio_return() return the error return of a completed AIO
request. (as it does on othe OS's and in 7.x).
The man page for 6.x and other OS's indicate that aio_return
shoud return all the same results as a returning read() or
Frank Behrens wrote:
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28 Nov 2007 14:37:
>> Use forcestart or forcestop to manage services that are not enabled in
>> rc.conf. This is normal. If you got a warning, then on shutdown every rc.d
>
> Most (all?) people recommend in this thread the use of
Alexey Popov wrote:
Hi
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Now FreeBSD 7-STABLE ULE 8-core server without optimized PHP
realpath_cache_size (producing 2000+ lstats per request) can handle
up to ~24 rps as opposed to max. 17 rps without your patch. %sys
never grows over %user with your patch. On the server
Matt Reimer wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pete French wrote:
On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad
cores it takes about 3 minutes! This is true for both the 32 and 64 bit
versions of FreeBSD :-(
That almost certainly ha
The first of the Release Candidate builds for FreeBSD 6.3 is now
available. There is one more Release Candidate planned, which will be
followed by the release unless a major show-stopper issue crops up
during testing.
As mentioned in a previous HEADS-UP message the release branch has been
create
On Nov 29, 2007 10:58 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete French wrote:
> > On the dual core processors this takes about 20 seconds. On the quad
> > cores it takes about 3 minutes! This is true for both the 32 and 64 bit
> > versions of FreeBSD :-(
>
> That almost certainly has noth
Pete French wrote:
I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster
saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons,
the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less
identical apart from the processors I belive.
Both have
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:37:05AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
> > Can you verify that the machine is actually dead? Do you have another
> > machine that you can hook up either to a serial console, or ssh into the
> > dead box? Weird X symptoms could lead to an unresponsive keyboard, with
> > t
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Pete French wrote:
> I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original
> poster saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual
> core Xeons, the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers,
> more or less identical apart from
> > ULE- or 4BSD-scheduler?
>
> 4BSD - am just running GENERIC on both system. Should I try ULE?
ULE has shown several improvements compared to 4BSD with more than one
cpu. It's worth trying but may not improve the rm-rimes.
> > Bit OT: Are the servers DL360 or DL380 (G5)? I will upgrade a DL380
> ULE- or 4BSD-scheduler?
4BSD - am just running GENERIC on both system. Should I try ULE?
> Bit OT: Are the servers DL360 or DL380 (G5)? I will upgrade a DL380
> server from 6.2 to 7.0 (beta3) in order to gain some performance
> tomorrow.
Both the old and new are DL360 G5 according the the iLo.
"Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> > > Stefano & stable@
> > > I saw similar installing 7.0-BETA3 on my Digital HiHote Ultra
> > ..
> > > I'll look for right syntax. eg maybe hw.ata.ata_dma=0 etc starting
> > > in my http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/hardware/laptops/#loader.conf
> >
Norberto Meijome wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:47:24 +0100
> Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ufs:
>> $ time -h tar -xf php_manual_en.tar.gz
>> 3.31s real 0.43s user 0.51s sys
>
> I've seem something similar , in the past, on 6.2, when writing to my
> From: Tom Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:42:35 +
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 03:28 -0800, Unga wrote:
> > --- Michael Proto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Unga wrote:
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > > I'm using FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on Inte
> I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster
> saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons,
> the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less
> identical apart from the processors I belive.
>
> Both have 7.0-BETA3
I think I also just came up against the same effect that the original poster
saw. I have two sets of machines here - one is a pair of dual core Xeons,
the other a pair of quad core Xeons. They are HP servers, more or less
identical apart from the processors I belive.
Both have 7.0-BETA3 installed,
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 03:28 -0800, Unga wrote:
> --- Michael Proto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Unga wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > I'm using FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on Intel P4 3.0GHz,
> > > 512MB Ram computer.
> > >
> > > Its very irritatingly hangs very frequently, more
> > than
> > > 10 tim
--- Michael Proto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unga wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I'm using FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE on Intel P4 3.0GHz,
> > 512MB Ram computer.
> >
> > Its very irritatingly hangs very frequently, more
> than
> > 10 times a day. Do others find FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE
> > always hangs? I simp
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28 Nov 2007 14:37:
> Use forcestart or forcestop to manage services that are not enabled in
> rc.conf. This is normal. If you got a warning, then on shutdown every rc.d
Most (all?) people recommend in this thread the use of "forcestart" /
"forcestop".
40 matches
Mail list logo
