On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:13:57AM +0100, Tom Vijlbrief wrote:
> 2011/1/9 Jeremy Chadwick :
>
> >
> > Not to get off topic, but what is causing this? It looks like you have
> > a cron job or something very aggressive doing a "smartctl -t short
> > /dev/ad4" or equivalent. If you have such, pleas
2011/1/9 Jeremy Chadwick :
>
> Not to get off topic, but what is causing this? It looks like you have
> a cron job or something very aggressive doing a "smartctl -t short
> /dev/ad4" or equivalent. If you have such, please disable this
> immediately. You shouldn't be doing SMART tests with such
2011/1/9 Jeremy Chadwick :
>
> I'm sorry, I gave you incorrect advice; I'm used to Intel controllers
> with AHCI, not Silicon Image controllers. Silicon Image controllers
> have their own driver: siis(4).
>
> Please change ahci_load="yes" to siis_load="yes".
>
Tried it, but no change, the siis d
It's looking more like a hardware failure.
I connected the phone to a friends HP Pavilion dv8xxx running FreeBSD 8
r217175 and it detected it & created da devices.
I've upgraded to r217175 and still doesn't work.
When I get back to lab, I'll test hardware and go from there.
Thanks for the suggest
>> On 6 January 2011 22:26, Chris Forgeron wrote:
>> > You know, these days I'm not as happy with SSD's for ZIL. I may blog about
>> > some of the speed results I've been getting over the last 6mo-1yr that
>> > I've been running them with ZFS. I think people should be using hardware
>> > RAM dr
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 09:02:16PM +0100, Tom Vijlbrief wrote:
> 2011/1/9 Jeremy Chadwick :
>
> >
> > errno 6 is "device not configured". ad4 is on a Silicon Image
> > controller (thankfully a reliable model). Sadly AHCI (ahci.ko) isn't in
> > use here; I would advocate switching to it (your dev
2011/1/9 Jeremy Chadwick :
>
> errno 6 is "device not configured". ad4 is on a Silicon Image
> controller (thankfully a reliable model). Sadly AHCI (ahci.ko) isn't in
> use here; I would advocate switching to it (your device names will
> change however) and see if these errors continue (they'll
> It has been suggested that I move this thread to freebsd-stable. The
> thread so far (deficient NFS performance in FreeBSD 8):
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-January/034006.html
>
> I updated my kernel to FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE. This improved my
> throughput, but st
> Daniel Braniss writes...
>
> > I have it pxebooting nicely and running with an NFS root
> > but it then reports locking problems: devd, syslogd, moused (and
> > maybe
> > others) lock their PID file to protect against multiple instances.
> > Unfortunately, these daemons all start before statd/lo
It has been suggested that I move this thread to freebsd-stable. The
thread so far (deficient NFS performance in FreeBSD 8):
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-January/034006.html
I updated my kernel to FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE. This improved my
throughput, but still not to t
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 04:41:43PM +0100, Tom Vijlbrief wrote:
> I've run many fscks on /usr in single user because I had soft update
> inconsistencies,
> no DMA errors during those repairs.
There's no 1:1 ratio between running fsck on a filesystem and seeing a
DMA error. I should explain what I
Daniel Braniss writes...
I have it pxebooting nicely and running with an NFS root
but it then reports locking problems: devd, syslogd, moused (and maybe
others) lock their PID file to protect against multiple instances.
Unfortunately, these daemons all start before statd/lockd and so the
lockin
I've run many fscks on /usr in single user because I had soft update
inconsistencies,
no DMA errors during those repairs.
smartctl 5.40 2010-10-16 r3189 [FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE i386] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-10 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
=== START OF INFORMATION
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 01:18 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:49:27PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
> >> On 01/09/2011 10:00 AM, Attila Nagy wrote:
> >>>On 12/16/2010 01:44 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> >>>
Once upon a time, this was a known problem with the arcmsr driver not
correctly interacting with ZFS, resulting in this behavior.
Since I'm presuming that the arcmsr driver update which was intended
to fix this behavior (in my case, at least) is in your nightly build,
it's probably worth pinging t
On 01/09/2011 01:18 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:49:27PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
On 01/09/2011 10:00 AM, Attila Nagy wrote:
On 12/16/2010 01:44 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
Hi everyone,
following the announcement of Pawel Jakub Dawidek (p...@freebsd.org) I am
provid
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:33:10PM +0100, Tom Vijlbrief wrote:
> The last half year I've been installing FreeBSD on several machines.
>
> I installed it on my main desktop system a few weeks ago which
> normally runs Linux, but I get this panic under heavy disk I/O.
>
> It even happened during th
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:49:27PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 10:00 AM, Attila Nagy wrote:
> > On 12/16/2010 01:44 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> >>Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>following the announcement of Pawel Jakub Dawidek (p...@freebsd.org) I am
> >>providing a ZFSv28 testing patch for 8
On 09/01/2011 10:14, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> I assume you are familiar with these papers?
>
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1317403
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1670144
>
> Short version: as hard disk sizes increase to 2 TB and beyond while the URE
> rate
> stays in the order of
The last half year I've been installing FreeBSD on several machines.
I installed it on my main desktop system a few weeks ago which
normally runs Linux, but I get this panic under heavy disk I/O.
It even happened during the initial sysinstall, allthough I also have
completed several buildworlds w
On 01/01/2011 08:09 PM, Artem Belevich wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Attila Nagy wrote:
What I see:
- increased CPU load
- decreased L2 ARC hit rate, decreased SSD (ad[46]), therefore increased
hard disk load (IOPS graph)
...
Any ideas on what could cause these? I haven't upgraded
On 01/09/2011 10:00 AM, Attila Nagy wrote:
On 12/16/2010 01:44 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
Hi everyone,
following the announcement of Pawel Jakub Dawidek (p...@freebsd.org) I am
providing a ZFSv28 testing patch for 8-STABLE.
Link to the patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v28/sta
On 09/01/2011 10:24, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> On 9 January 2011 21:03, Matthew Seaman
> wrote:
>
>>
>> So you sacrifice performance 100% of the time based on the very unlikely
>> possibility of drives 1+2 or 3+4 failing simultaneously, compared to the
>> similarly unlikely possibility of drive
Hi, all,
Am 09.01.2011 um 11:03 schrieb Matthew Seaman:
> [*] All of this mathematics is pretty suspect, because if two drives
> fail simultaneously in a machine, the chances are the failures are not
> independent, but due to some external cause [eg. like the case fan
> breaking and the box toast
On 9 January 2011 21:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> So you sacrifice performance 100% of the time based on the very unlikely
> possibility of drives 1+2 or 3+4 failing simultaneously, compared to the
> similarly unlikely possibility of drives 1+3 or 1+4 or 2+3 or 2+4
But this is not what you firs
On 09/01/2011 09:01, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 9 January 2011 19:44, Matthew Seaman
> wrote:
>> Not without backing up your current data, destroying the existing
>> zpool(s) and rebuilding from scratch.
>>
>> Note: raidz2 on 4 disks doesn't really win you anything over 2 x mirror
>> p
Hi
On 9 January 2011 19:44, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Not without backing up your current data, destroying the existing
> zpool(s) and rebuilding from scratch.
>
> Note: raidz2 on 4 disks doesn't really win you anything over 2 x mirror
> pairs of disks, and the RAID10 mirror is going to be rather m
On 12/16/2010 01:44 PM, Martin Matuska wrote:
Hi everyone,
following the announcement of Pawel Jakub Dawidek (p...@freebsd.org) I am
providing a ZFSv28 testing patch for 8-STABLE.
Link to the patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v28/stable-8-zfsv28-20101215.patch.xz
I've got an I
Brill! Thanks :)
Joe
On 8 Jan 2011, at 09:50, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:14:19AM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2011, at 17:30, Artem Belevich wrote:
>>> One way to get specific ratio for *your* pool would be to collect
>>> record size statistics from your
On 09/01/2011 05:50, Randy Bush wrote:
> given i have raid or raidz1, can i move to raidz2?
>
> # zpool status
> pool: tank
> state: ONLINE
> scrub: none requested
> config:
>
> NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
> tankONLINE 0 0 0
> raidz1
30 matches
Mail list logo
