David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Very correct except for one thing, allocation fails and ipcs -u
> shows 4097 when the limit shows 4096. safemode reports that
> eventually the kernel crashes. This may be due to the test9
> 'features' and a side affect, or it may be something to keep in
Very correct except for one thing, allocation fails and ipcs -u shows
4097 when the limit shows 4096. safemode reports that eventually the
kernel crashes. This may be due to the test9 'features' and a side
affect, or it may be something to keep in mind once we get things nailed
down a bit.
-d
safemode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The sum of the Bytes used in the 4096 entries ipcs shows is WAY off from the
> bytes used in df if that's what you wanted to know.df shows 109K in
> use... and that's easily beaten by the first entry in ipcs
>
> -- Shared Memory Segments
>
Hi David,
David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's time to get Christoph on the line and see what he has
> to say. The 4096 number is a limit to the system, you can have a
> max of 4096 shared memory segments systemwide. Do you know offhand
> which programs are using(abusing) shm?
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, safemode wrote:
> Reply ALL also results in 2 mails being sent instead of one but of
> course this is usually not a problem since one is going direct and the
> other is going through vger, but still... it's kind of wasteful to
> resources and i dont see any harm in Reply-to b
> safemode wrote:
>
> > Mark Hahn wrote:
> >
> >> this has nothing to do with the linux kernel.
> >> X itself does not use shm for anything. apps may use
> >> an X extension (XSHM) which uses shm segments to exchange
> >> image data without copying through a socket, but that's
> >> an extension,
safemode wrote:
> Mark Hahn wrote:
>
>> this has nothing to do with the linux kernel.
>> X itself does not use shm for anything. apps may use
>> an X extension (XSHM) which uses shm segments to exchange
>> image data without copying through a socket, but that's
>> an extension, not inherent to X
Mark Hahn wrote:
this has nothing to do with the linux kernel.
X itself does not use shm for anything. apps may use
an X extension (XSHM) which uses shm segments to exchange
image data without copying through a socket, but that's
an extension, not inherent to X.
> Ok, compiling using a cvs of X
safemode wrote:
> SHM segments are increasing (they only go away when X closes) .. swap seems
> to be stable for nowhere is the ipcs -u output
If they all go away when X closes, it seems that X is at fault.
-d
--
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an
eggs-and-
Alan Cox wrote:
> I have about 16 after 2 days. Thats a fairly typical desktop (gnome
panel,
> gfm and everything else is a terminal window)
Whoa now?! 16 shm segments?if that's true something is terribly
wrong with either X or the kernel's handling of shm that's scary.
this
is cu
19.5 day uptime on test8 and 4.01b, ~13 segments, ~350K all user 'david'.
4 day uptime on test8 and 4.01c, ~16 segments, 256 bytes used by user
'postgres'.
test9 is very broken, we know it is :]
There are a bunch of OOPSes and complaints about the VM.
-d
safemode wrote:
> Ok, compiling using
safemode wrote:
> Ok, compiling using a cvs of X i got a couple hours ago, I'm just
> wondering what the average segment number is for SHM on an X session
> that has been up for a while i'll get back with any sort of info
> on if the SHM problem has been solved with this latest CVS or if i
Ok, compiling using a cvs of X i got a couple hours ago, I'm just
wondering what the average segment number is for SHM on an X session
that has been up for a while i'll get back with any sort of info
on if the SHM problem has been solved with this latest CVS or if it
continues to look like
safemode wrote:
> Reply ALL also results in 2 mails being sent instead of one but of course this is
>usually not a problem since one is going direct and the other is going through vger,
>but still... it's kind of wasteful to
> resources and i dont see any harm in Reply-to being sent in the he
David Ford wrote:
> safemode wrote:
>
> > i'll get back about the latest xfree86 in about 2 hours .. but if anyone has any
>other ideas
> > or info i can give ...it's not problem. test8 seems stable enough to keep itself
>up until
> > i'm ready to reboot.
>
> I should hope, I have a 20 day upt
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
safemode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One more little complaint.. why doesn't vger replace the FROM to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] like any other sane mailing list ... i
>keep going to Reply and not sending to the list. At least add a
>reply-to tag like the proftpd mailin
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> safemode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[mega snip]
See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for all of the
good reasons why the vger lists behave just the way they should.
--
Henrik Storner | "Crackers thrive on code secrecy. Cockcroaches breed
<[EMAIL PROTE
safemode wrote:
> i'll get back about the latest xfree86 in about 2 hours .. but if anyone has any
>other ideas
> or info i can give ...it's not problem. test8 seems stable enough to keep itself up
>until
> i'm ready to reboot.
I should hope, I have a 20 day uptime so far.
-d
--
"Ther
David Ford wrote:
> safemode wrote:
>
> > One more little complaint.. why doesn't vger replace the FROM to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] like any other sane mailing list ... i
> > keep going to Reply and not sending to the list. At least add a
> > reply-to tag like the proftpd mailing list has if you
2.4.0-test8-vm3 seems quite stable with this CVS of X
After running xawtv and gqmpeg ...which would quickly die due to shm
being maxed .. it still works and shows ~ 839 segments ..not really
moving from it
And after 20 min with all the apps i had open before, still not in
swap. Which on test9,
David Ford wrote:
> safemode wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that test8-vm3 handles this fine. in test9 upon loading X i was
> > already using swap and down to 10MB ... here i have netscape loaded and some other
> > stuff along with gaim and i've got 36MB free still. I'm not so sure you can chal
safemode wrote:
> It seems to me that test8-vm3 handles this fine. in test9 upon loading X i was
> already using swap and down to 10MB ... here i have netscape loaded and some other
> stuff along with gaim and i've got 36MB free still. I'm not so sure you can chalk
> this up totally to X ...
David Ford wrote:
> XFree86 Version 4.0.1b / X Window System
> (protocol Version 11, revision 0, vendor release 6400)
> Release Date: 11 August 2000
>
> =)
>
> Are you by chance using cvs X from after september 10th? If so, hop on the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and post your comments there
safemode wrote:
> One more little complaint.. why doesn't vger replace the FROM to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] like any other sane mailing list ... i
> keep going to Reply and not sending to the list. At least add a
> reply-to tag like the proftpd mailing list has if you want to keep the
> FROM tag as
Shaw Starr repored on [EMAIL PROTECTED] that a fresh checkout of 4.01d and fresh
build of X resulted in a fixed/working shm w/ X.
-d
safemode wrote:
> When in doubt. . Blame it on the biggest piece of crap around .. X.One can
> say using a cvs of X is the cause of this by somehow i doubt i
Use your client Reply all function. that'll get itint here.
I personally think the list is fine the way it is because I dont need to
worry about whether or not the person who sent the message is on the
list or not by default. But that's just me.
safemode wrote:
>
> One more little complaint..
XFree86 Version 4.0.1b / X Window System
(protocol Version 11, revision 0, vendor release 6400)
Release Date: 11 August 2000
=)
Are you by chance using cvs X from after september 10th? If so, hop on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and post your comments there. There is another
gentlemen wit
One more little complaint.. why doesn't vger replace the FROM to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] like any other sane mailing list ... i
keep going to Reply and not sending to the list. At least add a
reply-to tag like the proftpd mailing list has if you want to keep the
FROM tag as the original sender.
Da
I think it's time to get Christoph on the line and see what he has to say. The
4096 number is a limit to the system, you can have a max of 4096 shared memory
segments systemwide. Do you know offhand which programs are using(abusing)
shm?
-d
safemode wrote:
> David Ford wrote:
>
> > No, those
David Ford wrote:
> No, those two are often empty. Does the total of the first group's bytes
> column match the used column of df?
>
> -d
The sum of the Bytes used in the 4096 entries ipcs shows is WAY off from the
bytes used in df if that's what you wanted to know.df shows 109K in
use... a
David Ford wrote:
> safemode wrote:
>
> > xawtv will still work but gqmpeg cannot run. shget returns no memory
> > available on any app trying to access it. Well, hope that tells
> > someone something because i'm stumped .. something in shm seems
> > broken.. or the vm is.
>
> what does
David Ford wrote:
> safemode wrote:
>
> > xawtv will still work but gqmpeg cannot run. shget returns no memory
> > available on any app trying to access it. Well, hope that tells
> > someone something because i'm stumped .. something in shm seems
> > broken.. or the vm is.
>
> what does
safemode wrote:
> xawtv will still work but gqmpeg cannot run. shget returns no memory
> available on any app trying to access it. Well, hope that tells
> someone something because i'm stumped .. something in shm seems
> broken.. or the vm is.
what does 'ipcs' show? a huge list or a lot o
i did an strace on gqmpeg and xawtv ..this is what gqmpeg showed when
trying to play a file
select(9, [8], NULL, NULL, {0, 0}) = 1 (in [8], left {0, 0})
read(8, "c", 1) = 1
select(9, [8], NULL, NULL, {0, 0}) = 1 (in [8], left {0, 0})
read(8, "e", 1)
In running xawtv i stumbled upon a very interesting message
shmget: No space left on device
yet df -m shows
shm 8192 108 8084 2% /var/shm
I'm not sure what's going on here, /var/shm shows a BUNCH of files in
it.. and none of my partitions are even close to be
35 matches
Mail list logo
