However, as a core general purpose filesystem, it seems to have flaws, not
the least of which is a re-separation of file cache and memory cache.
For me, this doesn't matter because ZFS is so much faster than UFS
overall. Even if you don't use any of its features, the latest version
does sequent
Moring and have a nice week!
The problems continues.
It appears that this has somethind to do with the xl,fxp,atapci cards.
On friday evening when I had hw access to the machine I've pulled out
the power of one of the disks
and remove rl0. The situation was absolutely the same! timeouts and
timeout
> > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Danny Braniss wrote:
> >
> > > after more testing, it seems it's related to changes made between Aug 4
> > > and
> > > Aug 29 ie, a kernel built on Aug 4 works fine, Aug 29 is slow. I'l now
> > > try
> > > and close the gap.
> >
> > I think this is the best way forwar
Ben Kelly wrote:
On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Bartosz Stec wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
These are the tuning settings I use:
vm.kmem_size="1536M"
vm.kmem_size_max="1536M"
vfs.zfs.arc_min="16M"
vfs.zfs.arc_max="64M"
Yesterday I've added 512 MB memory to box (sum 1,5GB), and set
vm.kmem_size
> it more difficult than I expected.
> for one, the kernel date was missleading, the actual source update is the
> key, so
> the window of changes is now 28/July to 19/August. I have the diffs, but
> nothing
> yet seems relevant.
>
> on the other hand, I tried NFS/TCP, and there things seem ok, i
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:53:06AM +0300, Anton - Valqk wrote:
> Moring and have a nice week!
> The problems continues.
> It appears that this has somethind to do with the xl,fxp,atapci cards.
> On friday evening when I had hw access to the machine I've pulled out
> the power of one of the disks
>
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 06:30:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Noyou misunderstood. The 7.1 box was connected to a 5.4 box doing a 50GB
> data transfer over rsync. Both nics were 1000 full duplex with a crossover
> cable.
> The speed performance was terrible and I could only get up to
> > it more difficult than I expected.
> > for one, the kernel date was missleading, the actual source update is the
> > key, so
> > the window of changes is now 28/July to 19/August. I have the diffs, but
> > nothing
> > yet seems relevant.
> >
> > on the other hand, I tried NFS/TCP, and there t
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > it more difficult than I expected.
>> > for one, the kernel date was missleading, the actual source update is the
>> > key, so
>> > the window of changes is now 28/July to 19/August. I have the diffs, but
>> > nothing
On 2008-09-28, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > Swap: 3000M Total, 181M Used, 2819M Free, 6% Inuse
> > sysctlnametomib: No such file or directory
> >
> > And no processes.
>
> I didn't expect it not to work on 6.x, I will play around with it
> tomorrow to see if it makes sense.
According to svn log
Danny Braniss wrote:
> Grr, there goes binary search theory out of the window,
> So far I have managed to pinpoint the day that the changes affect the
> throughput:
> 18/08/08 00:00:00 19/08/08 00:00:00
> (I assume cvs's date is GMT).
> now would be a good time for some help, s
* Edwin Groothuis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have made an update for the top(1) utility in the FreeBSD base
> system to get it from the 3.5b12 version to the 3.8b1 version.
Looks good, thanks!
IO mode seems to have changed a bit, giving different values to 3.5, it
seems while 3.5 gives you t
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Danny Braniss wrote:
> Grr, there goes binary search theory out of the window,
> So far I have managed to pinpoint the day that the changes affect the
> throughput:
> 18/08/08 00:00:00 19/08/08 00:00:00
> (I assume cvs's date is GMT).
> now
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully
analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into
UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all
scenarios.
Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
[...]
This also leads me a little off-topic -- when it comes to disk
replacements, administrators want to be able to do this without taking
the system down.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 05:36:17PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Sep-26 23:44:17 -0700, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:35:57PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote:
> >> As far as I know (at least ideally, when write caching is disabled)
> ...
> >FreeBSD ata
Dear Pyun,
thanx for your prompt answer (as usual).
Pyun YongHyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:21:00PM +0200, Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've serious network performance problems on a HP Turion X2
> > based brand new notebook; I onl
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:43 +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> >
> > I've successfully done a hot-swap (hardware: SATA hot-swap backplane,
> > AHCI in use, SATA2 disks), but it required me to issue "at
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Andrew Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, as a core general purpose filesystem, it seems to have flaws, not
>> the least of which is a re-separation of file cache and memory cache.
>>
>
> For me, this doesn't matter because ZFS is so much faster than UFS
>
Gavin Atkinson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 15:43 +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 03:16:11PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
I've successfully done a hot-swap (hardware: SATA hot-swap backplane,
AHCI in use, SATA2 disks), but it required me to i
On Sunday 28 September 2008 03:40 pm, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:50:49AM -0700, Jason C. Wells wrote:
> > I just installed a 6.4-PRERELEASE kernel and tried to boot. The
> > boot failed with a message that my ACPI was blacklisted. I have
> > had 'device acpi' in my kernel
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 05:25:32PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> It was about year ago with Asus and Sun Fire X2100. I don't have Asus
> servers now (all returned as reclamation). Now I am running one X2100
> and about ten X2100 M2. I have one spare X2100 M2, so if somebody have
> exact or
On Saturday 27 September 2008 02:37:55 pm John L. Templer wrote:
> I'm running 7.1-PRERELEASE, with /usr/src and /usr/ports last csup-ed
> just a few days ago. After being up for about a day or so the system
> will panic because of a page fault. I'm not completely sure, but it
> seems that the
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> I certainly can't agree with this. I don't think you're measuring the
> performance of the machine --- only measuring the performance of the
> filesystem. When ZFS is active, memory is committed in the kernel to ZF
In messing around trying to get a bootable FreeBSD system on a memory
stick I messed up and deleted my fstab file on my main FreeBSD STABLE
machine. Actually a script I was writing overwrote it... arrggghh.
I feel so stupid.
Anyway, my system now boots and then dies midway in boot because
Dan Allen wrote:
In messing around trying to get a bootable FreeBSD system on a memory
stick I messed up and deleted my fstab file on my main FreeBSD STABLE
machine. Actually a script I was writing overwrote it... arrggghh.
I feel so stupid.
Anyway, my system now boots and then dies midway
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:34:07 -0700
> Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:21:19AM +0200, Julian Stacey wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Reference:
> > > From: "Julian S
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 03:31:35PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> >Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always
> >disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too.
> Is there any possibility to selectively disable / enable background fsck
> on
On 29 Sep 2008, at 11:11 AM, Sean Bruno wrote:
A "mount -o rw /dev/ad0s1a /" doesn't "just work" for you?
It didn't, but when you said this I tried something else.
I went directly into single user mode myself (option 4 at boot) and
THEN I tried this and IT WORKED!
Apparently when the sys
A couple of things to note here. Well, many things actually.
* Turning off write caching, assuming the drive even looks at the bit,
will destroy write performance for any driver which does not support
command queueing. So, for example, scsi typically has command
queuein
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:46:15AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed some general instability with plugging in or removing USB
> devices with FreeBSD 7.x, even when the devices are not actively in use.
>
> I had this happen with umass and ucom devices 3 times today. The machin
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:46:15 +0200, Bruce M Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed some general instability with plugging in or removing USB
devices with FreeBSD 7.x, even when the devices are not actively in use.
I had this happen with umass and ucom devices 3 times today. T
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
An FYI: In the past couple of days, presumably as testing of 7.x becomes
more widespread, I've seen several reports of instability resulting from
ipfw credential rules. For those unfamiliar with them, these allow the
matching of packets in ipfw rules
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
However, the "request/respones" tests are awfull for my notebook (test
repeated on the notebook for the sake of conviction) :
Is it possible to rerun these tests with a 7.0 kernel of the same general
configuration? That would help us determine if
Hi,
My fileserver has sporadical hangups running 6.3:
FreeBSD 6.3-STABLE #0: Thu Jun 19 00:21:00 CEST 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/i386-pentium3-6.3/usr/src/sys/NUDEL
The exact release doesn't matter since it happened before. It always
happens afer some time of having some load on the sys
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:10:29PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
>
> >However, the "request/respones" tests are awfull for my notebook (test
> >repeated on the notebook for the sake of conviction) :
>
> Is it possible to rerun these tests with a 7.
> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:03:10 +0200
> From: Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 06:30:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Noyou misunderstood. The 7.1 box was connected to a 5.4 box
> doing a 50GB > data transfer over rsync. Both
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 06:30:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Noyou misunderstood. The 7.1 box was connected to a 5.4 box doing a 50GB
>> data transfer over rsync. Both nics were 1000 full duplex with a crossove
Matthew Dillon wrote:
It can take 6 hours to fsck a full 1TB HD. It can
take over a day to fsck larger setups. Putting in a few sleeps here
and there just makes the run time even longer and perpetuates the pain.
We have a box with millions of files spread over 2TB, on a 16 disk RAID.
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Also, there
exists data within the ARC (I'm always tempted to say the ARC Cache, but
that is redundant) that is also then in paging memory.
OK, but one advantage of ZFS memory consumption is under heavy write
loads, where much of the memory is used to store and reorde
:Completely agree. ZFS is the way of the future for FreeBSD. In my
:latest testing, the memory problems are now under control, there is just
:stability problems with random lockups after days of heavy load unless I
:turn off ZIL. So its nearly there.
:
:If only ZFS also supported a network dist
In the last episode (Sep 30), Andrew Snow said:
> Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> > Also, there exists data within the ARC (I'm always tempted to say
> > the ARC Cache, but that is redundant) that is also then in paging
> > memory.
>
> OK, but one advantage of ZFS memory consumption is under heavy writ
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 04:12:56PM +0200, Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
[...]
> >
> > AFAIK it seems that you're the first one that reports poor
> > performance issue of MCP65.
>
>
> someone must be ;) no kiddin, I am not convinced this is (only)
> a driver issue (cf. "bad NFS/UDP performance
Dan Nelson wrote:
That'd be handy, but at least on my system the data prefetcher isn't
really called often enough to make a difference either way (assuming
the counts are accurate). Metadata prefetch is a big win, however.
arcstats.prefetch_data_hits: 4538242 (13%)
arcstats.prefetch_data_misse
I've got a HP dv8000 laptop. Setting up the wpi driver for wireless freezes
the system on boot with the following error:
wpi0 requested unsupported memory range
wpi0: could not allocate memory resource
It lists a pcbi device (pcbi4 i think) and an actual memory range, but since I
have to reboot
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:40:46AM +1000, Andrew Snow wrote:
>
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>> It can take 6 hours to fsck a full 1TB HD. It can
>> take over a day to fsck larger setups. Putting in a few sleeps here
>> and there just makes the run time even longer and perpetuates the pain.
>
>
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
You're the first person I've encountered who has had to disable the ZIL
to get stability in ZFS; ouch, that must hurt.
Its not so bad: this machine is doing backups with rsync, sometimes
running 50 simultaneously. This workload doesn't contain any need for
synchronous
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:44:11AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> A couple of things to note here. Well, many things actually.
Matt, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your verbose
and thorough outline of the issues as you see them. You're the
first developer (albeit Dragonfly :
48 matches
Mail list logo
