Krzysztof Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are running an (IRC) server that under high-rate traffic (ie. DDoS
> attack) stops to respond to the network. The network remains locked up
> even after the original attack stops. [...]
And it turns out to be an usual PEBKAC.
Hello.
We are running an (IRC) server that under high-rate traffic (ie. DDoS
attack) stops to respond to the network. The network remains locked up
even after the original attack stops. However running tcpdump (which
switches the interface into promisc mode) unlocks networking and things
work agai
second NIC
(Intel PRO 10/100) as I don't exactly trust the nve(4) driver yet (even
though it seems to work on this particular motherboard).
There is no high load on the machine, just a workstation with X.org and KDE.
[1] snd_ich
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Campaign
C
client with "-g" and will tcpdump the
traffic again, if I notice it eating 99% of CPU time again.
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Computer Center, AGH UST| /\ Support plain text e-mail
___
f
ave this problem with ISC client. And I surely use
different cable provider, than the original poster ;)
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Computer Center, AGH UST| /\ Support plain text e-mail
___
freebsd-stable
stack?)
(kgdb)
The notebook runs GENERIC kernel of 6.0-RELEASE.
I don't know if it's known issue or not, nor it is reproducible. If
dmesg would be helpful, I can post it as well. I will keep the vmcore.0
for a while, too, just in case.
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Cam
PU #1 Launched!
SMP: AP CPU #2 Launched!
SMP: AP CPU #3 Launched!
[...]
Any ideas?
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Computer Centre, AGH UST| /\ Support plain text e-mail
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
Krzysztof Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > And 5-STABLE (installed snapshot from the end of January and upgraded to
> > a recent -STABLE) works fine. I love to answer to myself.
> And, despite my hopes, 5.4-RELEASE/amd64 does not work again. I think
> I'm getting
Krzysztof Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I'm trying, without success, to install the FreeBSD 5.3 on a Sun Fire
> > > V40z (it's an amd64 box) on its LSILogic 1030 Ultra4 SCSI controller.
> > Interesting. 5.3-RELEASE for x86 works on the same machine, sa
Krzysztof Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> cvsup-ing current 6.0-CURRENT right now, to check the giantless VFS once
> again. It will probably take an hour to get it up and running.
Unfortunately, 6.0-CURRENT didn't help at all.
FreeBSD 6.0-CURRENT #0: Wed May 25 13:2
Krzysztof Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> I will try to put my hands on the mentioned AMD box once again, to run
> some current 6.0 on it.
OK, got the box. I ran a 5.4-RELEASE, identical (as I just restored
dumps of my current workstation on it) as the one not giving problems
e issues I used to
observe were not really VFS/Giant related.
And yes, I ruled the USB issue out as well.
I will try to put my hands on the mentioned AMD box once again, to run
some current 6.0 on it.
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Computer Ce
061/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA100
ad1: 152627MB [310101/16/63] at ata0-slave
UDMA100
[...]
So they are, unfortunately, a little bit different machines. And no, I had
no chance to try 5.4-RELEASE on the amd one.
In general, I find 5.4-RELEASE performing better, if I can say that
with
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So the end result is that FreeBSD/amd64 5.3-RELEASE won't work for you,
> but 5.4-RELEASE will. Correct?
Assuming that nothing bad happens before the release, yes, it will work
with 5.4-RELEASE.
--
Krzysztof Kowalik |
Krzysztof Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm trying, without success, to install the FreeBSD 5.3 on a Sun Fire
> > V40z (it's an amd64 box) on its LSILogic 1030 Ultra4 SCSI controller.
> Interesting. 5.3-RELEASE for x86 works on the same machine, same disk
Krzysztof Kowalik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying, without success, to install the FreeBSD 5.3 on a Sun Fire
> V40z (it's an amd64 box) on its LSILogic 1030 Ultra4 SCSI controller.
> [...]
Interesting. 5.3-RELEASE for x86 works on the same machine, same disks
co
.
Regards,
--
Krzysztof Kowalik | () ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Computer Center, AGH UST| /\ Support plain text e-mail
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send a
Ronald Klop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For what I have seen everybody uses snd_emu10k1. Since I use my onboard
> soundcard (snd_ess* (not MPSAFE)) I have less problems with my sound under
> disk load.
> [...]
No, I don't. I use and_emu10kx, which behaves far better under high load
than the
ere anything I missed and therefore I should try/tune or any
other informations that are needed and I missed them?
[1] yes, SCHED_4BSD
Regards,
Krzysztof Kowalik
--
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
Data TLB: 32 entries, fully associative
Instruction TLB: 16 entries, fully
19 matches
Mail list logo
