On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:32:52AM +1000, jonathan michaels wrote:
> thank you gentle peoples for working out this solution.
Unfortunately it has not been 'worked out' with the decision-makers.
It has been suggested. Doing s/suggested/agreed to/ is not an
automatic process.
mcl
_
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:27:18AM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> I've just tried to build NanoBSD from 7.0-STABLE sources
> with MODULES_WITH_WORLD knob enabled and it failed.
> Note that NanoBSD uses make -j3 by default and I have dualcore system.
>
> ===> sys/modules/nfslockd (depend)
> @ ->
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:36:38AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> LOL, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not responsible for fxp, Intel didn't
> write
> it, and i've never touched it :) Now that wouldnt mean that I can't look at
> it,
> but I am very busy right now, so unless there's no alternative I'
On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Colin Percival wrote:
jonathan michaels wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:37:03PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Some quite lively offline discussion has come to conclusion with
the following suggestions to change the support policy.
Obviously, this is what we feel wo
jonathan michaels wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:37:03PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
Some quite lively offline discussion has come to conclusion with the
following suggestions to change the support policy. Obviously, this
is what we feel would be a good idea, but it's obviously open to
discu
freebsd-stable et al ...
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:37:03PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Some quite lively offline discussion has come to conclusion with the
> following suggestions to change the support policy. Obviously, this
> is what we feel would be a good idea, but it's obviously open to
Robert Watson написав(ла):
Sounds a lot like a lock leak/deadlock. Other than DDB output or a
crashdump, which would allow us to explore some more, there's probably
not much to be done with the box at this point other than reset.
Sorry about that.
Well, to reproduce you can try to build OpenO
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
That seems to be working. I've been up and running for 7 hours now with
your patch.
The machine is a bit slow but I have both WITNESS and INVARIANTS enabled
so as to make sure everything is fine.
I've now merged the fix to st
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Robert Watson написав(ла):
Could you try procstat -kk on the process, does that shed any light?
When I was trying `procstat -k', I was getting the message:
PIDTID COMM TDNAME KSTACK
procstat: sysctl: kern.proc.kstack
Robert Watson написав(ла):
Could you try procstat -kk on the process, does that shed any light?
When I was trying `procstat -k', I was getting the message:
PIDTID COMM TDNAME
KSTACK
procstat: sysctl: kern.proc.kstack unavailable
pro
John, we're already committed to upgrade to 6.3 (since it will
currently be supported longer than 6.4). 6.2 support isn't part of
this conversation, it has entirely revolved around support periods for
upcoming releases.
On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:10 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
Jo, so it seems to me
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
37126 33012 8371 2425 2425 1 mi - FreeBSD ELF64 dmake
PIDTID COMM TDNAME CPU PRI STATE WCHAN
37126 100724 dmake- 1 193 sleep -
There are no problems ktrace-ing
Some quite lively offline discussion has come to conclusion with the
following suggestions to change the support policy. Obviously, this
is what we feel would be a good idea, but it's obviously open to
discussion and there's nobody demanding anything here. It just seems
"better".
Old te
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 02:25:05 pm Paul B. Mahol wrote:
> > The OS is: FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE/amd64 from Sat Jul 26, 2008 and the box is
> > otherwise perfectly functional. The scheduling-related options are set
> > as such:
> >
> > options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler
> >
On Saturday 20 September 2008 05:58:03 am Oleg V. Nauman wrote:
> Quoting Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> This is approximately the date of my last UDP MFC. Could you try
> >>> backing out just src/sys/netinet6/udp6_usrreq.c revision 1.81.2.7
> >>> and see if that helps? (specifical
Jo, so it seems to me that you could just start by maintaining your own set of
extended support patches for the FreeBSD releases you care about. I don't
think you have to be a committer or secteam@ member to do this. It does mean
that you might not be able to fix a bug in, say, 6.2 at the same
> However, what I'm seeing on my system today is evidence of the scheduler
> having a bug, rather than merely being suboptimal. If the old scheduler is
> still maintained and supposed to work (however sub-optimally) in 4-CPU
> configurations, I'd expect either inquiries for more debug-information o
Josh Carroll написав(ла):
However, what I'm seeing on my system today is evidence of the scheduler
having a bug, rather than merely being suboptimal. If the old scheduler is
still maintained and supposed to work (however sub-optimally) in 4-CPU
configurations, I'd expect either inquiries for more
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 02:14:01AM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:27:18AM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> > I've just tried to build NanoBSD from 7.0-STABLE sources
> > with MODULES_WITH_WORLD knob enabled and it failed.
> > Note that NanoBSD uses make -j3 by default
LOL, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not responsible for fxp, Intel didn't write
it, and i've never touched it :) Now that wouldnt mean that I can't look at it,
but I am very busy right now, so unless there's no alternative I'd rather not.
Jack
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jeremy Chadwick <
On 9/23/08, Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I was trying to build OpenOffice using all of my 4 CPUs. To be able to
> do other work on the machine comfortably, I ran the build under nice,
> and assigned real-time priority to the two Xorg processes.
> The build started at abou
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 01:27:18AM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> I've just tried to build NanoBSD from 7.0-STABLE sources
> with MODULES_WITH_WORLD knob enabled and it failed.
> Note that NanoBSD uses make -j3 by default and I have dualcore system.
>
> ===> sys/modules/nfslockd (depend)
> @ ->
Paul B. Mahol написав(ла):
Let me know, what else I can do to help fix this bug -- I'm going to
reboot the machine tonight... Should I switch to SCHED_ULE as a
work-around?
SCHED_BSD4 is suboptimal for 4 CPUs, and it is replaced with SCHED_ULE
on 7 STABLE.
Thanks, Paul for the explanati
On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
It also doesn't seem reasonable to expect that decision to be rushed
in
advance of the necessary evaluation of the success or otherwise of
both
6.4 and 7.1 releases - especially when we're talking about these being
only a month or so away anyway.
On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
I mean seriously, if you were to say "We will support 6.4 for 24
months
*unless* we find it necessary to release 6.5 then I'd be totally
happy. But
that's not what is being said.
I believe that's exactly what has been said. rwatson@ and simon
Hi!
I've just tried to build NanoBSD from 7.0-STABLE sources
with MODULES_WITH_WORLD knob enabled and it failed.
Note that NanoBSD uses make -j3 by default and I have dualcore system.
===> sys/modules/nfslockd (depend)
@ -> /usr/local/src/sys
machine -> /usr/local/src/sys/i386/include
echo "#defi
Hello!
I was trying to build OpenOffice using all of my 4 CPUs. To be able to
do other work on the machine comfortably, I ran the build under nice,
and assigned real-time priority to the two Xorg processes.
The build started at about 23:10 last night, and hung at 23:46. The
procstat output for
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Ian Smith wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > I think you are using "last release" in a different way. "the last release"
> > is always the most release release. Right now 6.3 will have support for
> > longer than 6.4 will, which is the nature of the problem I ra
On September 22, 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
> your confirmation as to whether or not this corrects the
> specific symptoms you are seeing would be very helpful.
14+ hours under load with the patch and all is well. Thanks!
-- Norbert.
___
freebsd-sta
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:08 +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
>
> Gavin Atkinson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 18:48 +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:32 -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4 Sep 2008, at 10:29 AM, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
Hi Gavin,
Gavin Atkinson wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 18:48 +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:32 -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
On 4 Sep 2008, at 10:29 AM, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
This is supported by the iwn(4) driver in CURRENT, and it should be
quite easy to port
Hello,
A new patch is available that was done just after dtrace backport.
You can find it like the previous one on the pmc wiki.
It also include some new bugfix from head.
Fabien
Le 13 juil. 08 à 07:05, Joseph Koshy a écrit :
Hello List(s),
I am very pleased to announce a patch, by Fabien Th
Hi,
That seems to be working. I've been up and running for 7 hours now
with your patch.
The machine is a bit slow but I have both WITNESS and INVARIANTS
enabled so as to make sure everything is fine.
Rergads,
Mario
Robert Watson wrote:
Attached is an MFC candidate for
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:46:25AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whilst doing some QA work on XORP on my desktop, which has fxp0 and
> msk0, fxp0 got totally hosed.
> I was running PIM-SM and IGMPv2 router-mode on the box at the time.
>
> I wonder if this is related to the problems with
Hi,
Whilst doing some QA work on XORP on my desktop, which has fxp0 and
msk0, fxp0 got totally hosed.
I was running PIM-SM and IGMPv2 router-mode on the box at the time.
I wonder if this is related to the problems with fxp multicast
transmission I saw back in April.
I'm a bit concerned about
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2008, at 1:57 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
> > This is precisely what we already do -- we guarantee we will support the
> > last release on a branch for 24 months after the release. The point of
> > concern being discussed is that we can't tell you
36 matches
Mail list logo
