Pete French wrote:
Oh FFS! This morning I sent the following email..
Six months is a long gap! I was hooinh the problem had gone away. I
havent seen it on here since I started running 7.2-STABLE, and
before that I made it go away by using a debug kernel.
...and within an hour of typing that I
Jack Vogel wrote
in <2a41acea0911301119j1449be58y183f2fe1d1112...@mail.gmail.com>:
jf> I will look into this Hiroki, as time goes the older hardware does not
jf> always
jf> get test cycles like one might wish.
Thanks! Please let me know if you need more information.
-- Hiroki
pgp3TYQPpOkM
Hi Guys!
Is there anybody who uses Teltonika ModemPCI/G10 under 7-stable?
I see that USB version of it (ModemUSB/G10) works for people via uftdi
driver.
Regards,
Alex.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 07:47:28PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:18 -0800
> Gary Kline wrote:
>
> > { One far, far OT question here: who can explain what dovecot
> > is/does? why it even exists? I'm familiar with MTA's, like
> > sendmail; likewise with MUA's, l
On Thursday 26 November 2009 2:05:55 pm Scot Hetzel wrote:
> On 11/26/09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > I don't think parenthesis are the core of the problem, given that there
> > are many other devices in /sys/conf/files which utilise said method.
> >
> There are only 2 places in the /sys/conf/fil
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 9:48:44 pm Glen Barber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This evening I experienced another panic on a Toshiba laptop on which I've
> been having excessive hang-up issues.
>
> This time, I was able to get a crash report (attached, with fstat output
> excluded because of the le
I will look into this Hiroki, as time goes the older hardware does not
always
get test cycles like one might wish.
Jack
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that network connection of one of my boxes got
> significantly slow just after upgrading it to 8.0R
Am 30.11.2009 15:46, schrieb Ivan Voras:
> Robert Huff wrote:
>> Bill Moran writes:
>>
>>> It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is
>>> non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance
>>> improvements can be made in most cases by raising it.
>>
>> Docu
Hi,
I had a panic today when someone created a symlink over NFS to a UFS
file system.
There seem to be 2 open PRs on this already:
kern/122380
kern/133980
Any ideas on a fix? I have not tried to repeat this crash but I have
saved a snapshot of the file system so I can test if needed. I al
Robert Huff wrote:
Bill Moran writes:
It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is
non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance
improvements can be made in most cases by raising it.
Documentation/discussion where?
There is no documentation e
In response to Robert Huff :
>
> Bill Moran writes:
>
> > It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is
> > non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance
> > improvements can be made in most cases by raising it.
>
> Documentation/discussion where?
Bill Moran writes:
> It's common knowledge that the default value for vfs.read_max is
> non- optimal for most hardware and that significant performance
> improvements can be made in most cases by raising it.
Documentation/discussion where?
Respectfully,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> >In response to Ivan Voras :
> >
> >>Thomas Backman wrote:
> >>>On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >>>
> I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
> Benchmarks on P
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Ivan Voras :
Thomas Backman wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O shows
in contrast to all claims
In response to Ivan Voras :
> Thomas Backman wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >
> >> I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
> >> Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O
> >> shows in contrast to all clai
Adam Vande More wrote:
I think it's fairly well known disk io isn't FreeBSD's strong suit, but it's
not quite as bad as it looks. There is some low-hanging fruit here. If you
where to actually tune ZFS as recommended you'd see stronger results and
hopefully ahci will be enabled by default soon
2009/11/30 O. Hartmann
> I haven't looked at the Phoronix Test Suite[1], which is what's being
>>> used for testing "threaded I/O". I don't understand what "threaded
>>> I/O" means in this context; I'm assuming it means making a separate
>>> LWP for each I/O transaction, e.g. multiple LWPs for
Bruce Cran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:43:15 -0800
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I haven't looked at the Phoronix Test Suite[1], which is what's being
used for testing "threaded I/O". I don't understand what "threaded
I/O" means in this context; I'm assuming it means making a separate
LWP for eac
On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:38 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Thomas Backman wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
>>> Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O
>>> shows in contrast
Thomas Backman wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O shows
in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the opposite.
Co
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:43:15 -0800
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> I haven't looked at the Phoronix Test Suite[1], which is what's being
> used for testing "threaded I/O". I don't understand what "threaded
> I/O" means in this context; I'm assuming it means making a separate
> LWP for each I/O transac
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:43:15 -0800
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> The Phoronix Test Suite appears to be written entirely in PHP[2].
> I've looked at the source and it does appear to be PHP-based (with
> reliance on numerous third-party C-based libraries, of course; this
> is normal). Given that, I'm no
Thanks for the advice guys - dumpfs works fine, and I didnt even know
it existed until now which is king of embarassings given how old it is!
cheers,
-pete.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-st
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:19:37AM +0100, Thomas Backman wrote:
> > I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
> > Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O
> > shows in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the opposite.
>
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:18 -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
>> * There have been a lot of changes in the kernel configuration. If
>> you want a custom kernel, start anew from the 8.0 GENERIC kernel so
>> you don't miss anything.
>
> Could somebody who's running a 32biter send a GENERIC from 8.0 so I
> c
On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:47 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
> I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
> Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O shows
> in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the opposite.
Corrected link:
http:
I'm just wondering what's wrong with FreeBSD 8.0/amd64 when I read the
Benchmarks on Phoronix.org's website. Especially FreeBSD's threaded I/O
shows in contrast to all claims that have been to be improoved the opposite.
oh
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.o
Hi,
I noticed that network connection of one of my boxes got
significantly slow just after upgrading it to 8.0R. The box has an
em0 (82547EI) and worked fine with 7.2R.
The symptoms are:
- A ping to a host on the same LAN takes 990ms RTT, it reduces
gradually to around 1ms, and then it
28 matches
Mail list logo
