Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2010-Oct-29 15:51:40 -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: >On 10/29/2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:12:29PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: >>> I am supporting over 700 units in the field that are acting as >>> firewall/router/vpn devices, >>> that are running 6.3. It wou

puc in GENERIC

2010-11-01 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
Dear colleagues, in time of preparation for upcoming twin releases: what is preventing us from including puc driver in GENERIC? Provided more and more current non-server motherboards come without onboard com1, there is no chance for such a board to activate comconsole without puc in kernel (mo

Re: hast vs ggate+gmirror sychrnoisation speed

2010-11-01 Thread Mikolaj Golub
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:06:49 +0200 Mikolaj Golub wrote: MG> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:01:00 +0100 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: PJD>> I like your patch and I agree of course it is better to send keepalive PJD>> packets only when connection is idle. The only thing I'd change is to PJD>> modify QUEUE

Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread John Baldwin
On Monday, November 01, 2010 2:05:49 pm Stephen Clark wrote: > atapci0: port > 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6,0x170-0x177,0x376,0xffa00 > atapci0: Reserved 0x10 bytes for rid 0x20 type 4 at 0xffa0 > ata0: on atapci0 > atapci0: Reserved 0x8 bytes for rid 0x10 type 4 at 0x1f0 > atapci0: Reserved 0x1 bytes for

Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread Stephen Clark
On 11/01/2010 01:42 PM, John Baldwin wrote: On Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30:35 pm Stephen Clark wrote: On 11/01/2010 09:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote: On Monday, November 01, 2010 8:38:15 am Stephen Clark wrote: On 10/29/2010 05:20 PM, John Baldwin wrote: On Friday

Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread John Baldwin
On Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30:35 pm Stephen Clark wrote: > On 11/01/2010 09:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday, November 01, 2010 8:38:15 am Stephen Clark wrote: > > > >> On 10/29/2010 05:20 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, October 29, 2010 4:20:24 pm Stephen Clark

Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread Stephen Clark
On 11/01/2010 09:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote: On Monday, November 01, 2010 8:38:15 am Stephen Clark wrote: On 10/29/2010 05:20 PM, John Baldwin wrote: On Friday, October 29, 2010 4:20:24 pm Stephen Clark wrote: rr232x: RocketRAID 232x controller driver v1.02 (Jan 16 2008 04:16

Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread John Baldwin
On Monday, November 01, 2010 8:38:15 am Stephen Clark wrote: > On 10/29/2010 05:20 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday, October 29, 2010 4:20:24 pm Stephen Clark wrote: > > > >>> rr232x: RocketRAID 232x controller driver v1.02 (Jan 16 2008 04:16:21) > >>> hptrr: HPT RocketRAID controller driv

Re: hast vs ggate+gmirror sychrnoisation speed

2010-11-01 Thread Mikolaj Golub
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:01:00 +0100 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: PJD> I like your patch and I agree of course it is better to send keepalive PJD> packets only when connection is idle. The only thing I'd change is to PJD> modify QUEUE_TAKE1() macro to take additional argument 'timeout' - if we PJD

Re: safe mode

2010-11-01 Thread Stephen Clark
On 10/29/2010 05:20 PM, John Baldwin wrote: On Friday, October 29, 2010 4:20:24 pm Stephen Clark wrote: rr232x: RocketRAID 232x controller driver v1.02 (Jan 16 2008 04:16:21) hptrr: HPT RocketRAID controller driver v1.1 (Jan 16 2008 04:16:19) big snip lo0: bpf attached rr232

Re: hast vs ggate+gmirror sychrnoisation speed

2010-11-01 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 03:25:56PM +0300, Mikolaj Golub wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:08:54 +0300 Mikolaj Golub wrote to Pawel Jakub Dawidek: > > PJD>> I looked at the code and the keepalive packets arbe sent from another > PJD>> thread. Could you try turning them off in primary.c and see i

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-11-01 Thread Willem Jan Withagen
On 2010-11-01 8:30, Andriy Gapon wrote: First and foremost, the double-caching issue for ZFS+sendfile on FreeBSD is still there and no resolution for this issue is on horizon. So, you have to account for the fact that twice as much memory is needed for this use-case. Whether you plan your system

Intel CPU topology code MFC-ed to stable/8

2010-11-01 Thread Andriy Gapon
Please be advised that Intel CPU topology code from head has been MFC-ed to stable/8 as r214621. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free

Fwd: amd64: VM_KMEM_SIZE_SCALE changed to 1

2010-11-01 Thread Andriy Gapon
FYI, this has been MFC-ed as r214620. Original Message Message-ID: <4c9323f0.90...@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:16:48 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon To: freebsd-a...@freebsd.org CC: freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org Subject: amd64: VM_KMEM_SIZE_SCALE changed to 1 on 09/09/2010 1

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-11-01 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 31/10/2010 11:02 Alexander Zagrebin said the following: > I have a question. > When we transfer a file via sendfile, then current code allocates > a memory, marked inactive. For example, if the file has size 100 MB, > then 100 MB of memory will be allocated. > If we have to transfer this file ag