> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:33:57 +0800
> From: TJ Varghese
>
> > The deviation in your disk I/O isn't a major surprise (to me anyway),
> > given the system specs. What *does* surprise me is your abysmal I/O
> > speeds in general. 18MB/sec min, 24MB/sec max?! ICH6-M can do a lot
> > more than
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:36:12PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:32:05PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
> > > 8-Stable. Going back to No
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:06:58 +0800
> From: TJ Varghese
>
> >
>
> > > Maybe there is a hardware component here? Are both disks on the same
> > > controller? Or if not are both controllers using the same interrupt line?
> >
> > No. Each is on its one controller and is the only disk on that
>
> The deviation in your disk I/O isn't a major surprise (to me anyway),
> given the system specs. What *does* surprise me is your abysmal I/O
> speeds in general. 18MB/sec min, 24MB/sec max?! ICH6-M can do a lot
> more than that. Something isn't right.
>
>
it's possible that the hw is...subopti
>
> > Maybe there is a hardware component here? Are both disks on the same
> > controller? Or if not are both controllers using the same interrupt line?
>
> No. Each is on its one controller and is the only disk on that
> controller.
>
> > You should have a look at 'systat -vmstat' with dd running
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:29:54 -0700
> From: Jeremy Chadwick
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
> > 8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
> > see variations of
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:32:05 +0200
> From: Roland Smith
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
> > 8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
> > see variations of up
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:36:12PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> > Both figures seem quite low to me? I cannot exactly reproduce your test,
> > because I don't have an empty second disk handy, but doing
> >
> > dd if=/dev/zero bs=1m count=100 of=/tmp/foo
>
> With a total write size of 10
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:32:05PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
> > 8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
> > see variations of up to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
> 8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
> see variations of up to 22% in identical operations. This is not a
> degradation as the perfor
On Friday 13 August 2010 06:50 pm, Andrew J. Caines wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> > The source/responsible code for the printing is in function
> > clock_ts_to_ct() in: src/sys/kern/subr_clock.c
>
> I took a look at the code in an attempt to divine the reason for
> the fre
Jeremy,
Thanks for the quick response.
The source/responsible code for the printing is in function
clock_ts_to_ct() in: src/sys/kern/subr_clock.c
I took a look at the code in an attempt to divine the reason for the
frequent messages, without success.
Any idea why I see so many? I'm not aware
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:16:01PM -0400, Andrew J. Caines wrote:
> Since installing 8.1-RC2 and now on up-to-date RELENG_8 I am frequently
> getting kern.crit messages like
>
> ts_to_ct(1281661818.743348859) = [2010-08-13 01:10:18]
>
> and have been unable so far to determine their origin or pur
Since installing 8.1-RC2 and now on up-to-date RELENG_8 I am frequently
getting kern.crit messages like
ts_to_ct(1281661818.743348859) = [2010-08-13 01:10:18]
and have been unable so far to determine their origin or purpose. I saw
no such messages while running 7.x or earlier releases.
AFAICT t
In the meanwhile, some Web applications (they don't even access /var
but only /srv) don't work anymore because of very strange "file not
accessible" and "file not found" errors although I haven't changed
anything and the file system isn't full or something like that. I
think the whole pool or serve
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:01:09AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
> 8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
> see variations of up to 22% in identical operations. This is not a
> degradation as the perfor
> From: Stefan Bethke
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:23:08 +0200
>
> Am 13.08.2010 um 18:01 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
>
> > Note the dramatic differences even on the same kernel. For the December
> > 6 kernel, for example, I see a maximum of 23,676,086 and a minimum of
> > just 18,304,565.
>
> A
Hello.
I recently updated the central file server/router systems for a pair of
research clusters from RELENG_8_0 to RELENG_8_1. After following the
proper procedures, the network throughput when pulling files from both
machines via mxge0 is 200KB/s or less. Before the update, 50MB/s was
the
Am 13.08.2010 um 18:01 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> Note the dramatic differences even on the same kernel. For the December
> 6 kernel, for example, I see a maximum of 23,676,086 and a minimum of
> just 18,304,565.
Are the disks still OK? If any sectors have been remapped between runs,
additio
On 08/13/2010 20:02, Andreas Mayer wrote:
> $ uname -a
> FreeBSD wurd.dev001.net 8.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE #0: Mon Jul 19
> 02:36:49 UTC 2010
> r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
>
> 2010/8/13 Malcolm Waltz :
>> Have you tried "zfs list -t all" ?
>
> I have, it p
$ uname -a
FreeBSD wurd.dev001.net 8.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE #0: Mon Jul 19
02:36:49 UTC 2010
r...@mason.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
2010/8/13 Malcolm Waltz :
> Have you tried "zfs list -t all" ?
I have, it produces this output:
$ zfs list -t all
NAME
For some time I have seen very odd issues with IO performance on
8-Stable. Going back to November of last year when 8.0 was released, I
see variations of up to 22% in identical operations. This is not a
degradation as the performance moves up and down.
This is a very simplistic case. I have two id
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:51:24PM +0200, Andreas Mayer wrote:
> I have a problem with my ZFS storage: some application filled a
> certain directory in /var completely up with data and the server runs
> a script which takes a snapshot every night. So, ~650 GB of the
> available 700 GB were filled u
Hi,
I have a problem with my ZFS storage: some application filled a
certain directory in /var completely up with data and the server runs
a script which takes a snapshot every night. So, ~650 GB of the
available 700 GB were filled up.
Then I destroyed the last two snapshots (each referencing abou
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Is your metal desk earthed?
No, but the computer has been sitting on it since 2004 with remarkable
uptime. The UPS does appear to be really dead (it beeps now, and has
a red light), but that didn't fix all of the problems.
--
-- Schlake
__
Hi!
I'm not sure if the problem was solved, so...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:49:14 +0800 Alex V. Petrov wrote:
> smartctl -a /dev/ad8
> Device Model: WDC WD10EADS-00M2B0
> Firmware Version: 01.00A01
> 193 Load_Cycle_Count0x0032 184 184 000Old_age Always
>
> - 4
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:37:53 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:37:53 - starting RELENG_8_0 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:37:53 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:38:12 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-08-13 10:38:12 - /usr
Hi,
On 13 Aug 2010, at 04:33, William D. Colburn (Schlake) wrote:
> A rehash of the problem:
>
> If my computer was plugged into the UPS and sitting on my metal desk
> the drive controllers would fail and cause a panic almost immediately
> when booted. If my computer was plugged into wall power
28 matches
Mail list logo
