Re: [PATCH] Relevance of 8254 calibration.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Warner Losh wrote: The higher levels of NetBSD does this if you are running ntpd. Ditto Linux. Thanks for the pointer, i'm going to check out the NTP stuff in both OS' just now. I measure phase differences in oscelators to sub-pico second level in my day job :-). ahh that explains everything ;) Cheers, Zwane PS the box runs fine with the patch right now (2 day uptime) I can't do anything which would write to the RTC without it blocking for a long time, but i only do project compiles on the box anyway. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [PATCH] Relevance of 8254 calibration.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Warner Losh wrote: Yes. Almost *ALL* PCs in the field aren't exactly 11931282Hz. There's a lot of variance in this. PC have such crappy oscillators that calibration is required. The slight variation can be as large as +-300Hz, which is huge. :-(. But I'm a little biased here... Warner hmm cross referencing here (forgive me ;) NetBSD nor Linux do this calibration and NetBSD runs on just about anything ;) Cheers, Zwane To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Info : L'Annuaire Francais par Departement facilite vos recherches
Bonjour, L'annuaire Francais Par departement http://www.annuairefrancais.com integre desormais un moteur de recherche pour affiner vos recherches sur le web. L'inscription reste gratuite et la validation toujours manuelle. L'adresse d'inscription est desormais http://inscrip.annuairefrancais.com Pour toutes suggestions contactez par mail : direction : [EMAIL PROTECTED] validation : [EMAIL PROTECTED] publicite : [EMAIL PROTECTED] partenariat : [EMAIL PROTECTED] INFORMATIONS : retrait de notre liste d'info : http://supressinfo.annuairefrancais.com (L'annuaire francais envoi 2 infos par an) L'annuaire Francais 119 Rue des Pyrenees 75020 PARIS +33 (0)1 43 67 00 74 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: BPF - Packet Reception
Thanks for all the replies. In linux, the packet reception can be done efficiently through the usage of ethernet sockets. In FreeBSD, one of the option is by using the BPF. But, as already commented, BPF is not a high performance device. So, Can anyone give an alternative way in FreeBSD (other than modifying the driver code), so that high packet-rate reception can be done by without dropping any of the packets ? Thanks in advance Raj -- On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:05:33 Robert Watson wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Rajesh P Jain wrote: We are trying to use BPF (Packet Filter) pseduo device to send and receive the packets. Even if there is a slight delay (Some processing has to be done on the read packet) between the issuing of 'read' call, so many packets are getting dropped. Is there a way to attach a callback function to the opened device, so that on a packet arrival, this function is being called. We polling the device is always risky thing as we may loose some packet. Any help on this would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards, -Raj There are a number of things that can be done to improve BPF's behavior under high volume, including setting a larger in-kernel buffer for BPF (using BIOCSBLEN), as well as implementing the equivilent of interupt coallescing when delivering packets to userland, through the use of a timeout (BIOCSRTIMEOUT, BIOCIMMEDIATE), which can increase throughput. While BPF is not able to handle extremely high packet rates, due to it performing memory copies and simple virtual machine execution, I've quite successfully used it to do userland packet forwarding (read, process, send) in the 100mbps range on moderately equipped machines. Depending on the nature of the packets you're capturing, optimizing your BPF code, or feeding it code that matches more specifically, can also impact performance. The performance of BPF is often directly associated with the amount of userland context switching going on: for example, running my BPF-based packet forwarding program at the same time as tcpdump would easily halve the throughput by making the number of context switches proportional to the number of packets delivered. A single process performing BPF operations will perform *much* better on an unloaded machine. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: BPF - Packet Reception
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rajesh P Jain wrote: RPJThanks for all the replies. RPJ RPJIn linux, the packet reception can be done efficiently through the usage of ethernet sockets. RPJ RPJ In FreeBSD, one of the option is by using the BPF. But, as already commented, BPF is not a high performance device. RPJ RPJ So, Can anyone give an alternative way in FreeBSD (other than modifying the driver code), so that high packet-rate reception can be done by without dropping any of the packets ? man 4 ng_ether perhaps harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: compare and contrast vmware and jail ?
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 02:11:42PM -0700, Joesh Juphland wrote: I am going to be setting up four freeBSD servers as a test environment - they need to be totally isolated machines. However, I would like to see if I can do all of this on one server. The choice that comes to mind immediately is vmware, but since I am required to use all freeBSD, I would be using vmware via linux compatibility mode, which is somewhat slower than native vmware on linux. Eek, no way. I *have* to use VMware to run Linux at work (otherwise I would have had to put Linux back on my desktop) and I have been nothing short of utterly impressed with it's performance on FreeBSD. (On a side-note, if one has to run both Linux FreeBSD on the same box, I hold the opinion that it is actually advantageous to run FreeBSD as the host and Linux as the guest for two reasons. Firstly, I could swear VMware runs far faster and more stable on FreeBSD than it does on Linux (from the machines we have at work anyway). Secondly, there's always likely to be better support for Linux as a guest OS.) I haven't run multiple VMware instances though, nor have I used FreeBSD as a guest OS -- your mileage may vary. I'm not really suggesting VMware over jail, I just wanted to inform you that VMware performs bloody fantastically on FreeBSD. (Yeah, ok, I'll keep going. My Linux VM actually builds our work system up to ten minutes quicker than running Linux na- tively on the same machine. Make of that what you will!) Regards, Trent. -- Trent Nelson - Software Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] A man with unlimited enthusiasm can achieve almost anything. --unknown To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: compare and contrast vmware and jail ?
Dear Trent, (Yeah, ok, I'll keep going. My Linux VM actually builds our work system up to ten minutes quicker than running Linux na- tively on the same machine. Make of that what you will!) Umm. Have you tried to build it under linux-compat in FreeBSD? Sounds like it's worth the experiment. :) Kees Jan $DEITY bless $NATION. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: compare and contrast vmware and jail ?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 12:52:16PM +0100, Koster, K.J. wrote: Dear Trent, (Yeah, ok, I'll keep going. My Linux VM actually builds our work system up to ten minutes quicker than running Linux na- tively on the same machine. Make of that what you will!) Umm. Have you tried to build it under linux-compat in FreeBSD? Sounds like it's worth the experiment. :) Well, the Linux build by default uses the Cygnus compiler and it was too much initial effort to get that working on FreeBSD (we only had a RedHat distribution). I ended up porting one of the projects to FreeBSD w/ gcc 2.95.3 and it built about fourty minutes faster than the Linux machines using Cygnus GNUpro-99r1. It still manages to be around fifteen minutes faster than the Linux machines that've been switched to use 2.95.3. Still pretty freakin' adimirable if you ask me. Kees Jan Trent. -- Trent Nelson - Software Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] A man with unlimited enthusiasm can achieve almost anything. --unknown To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: BPF - Packet Reception
In linux, the packet reception can be done efficiently through the usage of ethernet sockets. In FreeBSD, one of the option is by using the BPF. But, as already commented, BPF is not a high performance device. It sounds like you're saying that BPF is less efficient than Linux Ethernet sockets. This is somewhat surprising given that one of the traditional problems with Linux for packet sniffing has been low performance. I would recommend you to ask about this on the TCPDUMP list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: tar and nodump flag
David O'Brien writes: On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:18:42PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote: How about adding the nodump flag processing in tar? This would be a *bad* idea. It would diverge our tar even more than it already is -- which is so bad it isn't trival to update to the latest version (ours is many years behind). Does it mean we can't modify the BSD tar because it's already too different from the GNU tar, but at the same time we don't upgrade to the new GNU tar because it might require too much work adapting the old mods to the new code? Am I wrong or this means the BSD tar code is frozen? Do you have a list of discrepancies (not a diff) between the current BSD tar and the version of GNU tar it's based on? We might find out the new GNU tar doesn't need as much hacking as the old one needs. -- walter pelissero http://www.pelissero.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: tar and nodump flag
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Walter C. Pelissero wrote: WCPDavid O'Brien writes: WCP On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 02:18:42PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote: WCP How about adding the nodump flag processing in tar? WCP WCP This would be a *bad* idea. It would diverge our tar even more WCP than it already is -- which is so bad it isn't trival to update to WCP the latest version (ours is many years behind). WCP WCPDoes it mean we can't modify the BSD tar because it's already too WCPdifferent from the GNU tar, but at the same time we don't upgrade to WCPthe new GNU tar because it might require too much work adapting the WCPold mods to the new code? WCP WCPAm I wrong or this means the BSD tar code is frozen? WCP WCPDo you have a list of discrepancies (not a diff) between the current WCPBSD tar and the version of GNU tar it's based on? We might find out WCPthe new GNU tar doesn't need as much hacking as the old one needs. Perhaps it makes sense to switch to star instead? The last version is Posix conform, supports extended headers and ACLs. According to the star developer (Joerg Schilling) GNU tar is severly broken. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: tar and nodump flag
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:30:25PM +, Walter C. Pelissero wrote: Does it mean we can't modify the BSD tar because it's already too different from the GNU tar, but at the same time we don't upgrade to the new GNU tar because it might require too much work adapting the old mods to the new code? Yes. Am I wrong or this means the BSD tar code is frozen? Sort of. Not a good position to be in. I have seriously considered importing the latest GNU tar into -CURRENT and applying only some of the FreeBSD changes to see just why we cannot live with a more stock GNU tar. Do you have a list of discrepancies (not a diff) between the current BSD tar and the version of GNU tar it's based on? No, I read diffs. :-) -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: tar and nodump flag
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:45:38PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: Perhaps it makes sense to switch to star instead? The last version is Posix conform, supports extended headers and ACLs. According to the star developer (Joerg Schilling) GNU tar is severly broken. Star is GLP'ed software. Thus bringing it in under a license justification won't work. So it would be up to someone to analysis Joerg Schilling statements and make a proposal on a FreeBSD mailing list to see if we could reach consensus on the change. A negative point would be that we'd be the only one using Star as our native tar. By sticking with GNU Tar we are in larger company. The ACL and extended header support may be a feature we really want in -current to go along with Robert Watson's TrustedBSD merges. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
malloc deadlock with M_NOWAIT
I am trying to allocate a dynamic number of large memory (128K) by malloc(128K, M_xxx, M_NOWAIT). Although this is not done in an interrupt routine, I figure I'd better use M_NOWAIT so that I can deal with the situation when the memory is low. However, I experience the following deadlock: #1 0xc02d8f4d in vm_object_page_remove (object=0xc03fa060, start=5690, end=5722, clean_only=0) at ../../vm/vm_object.c:1459 #2 0xc02d53ce in vm_map_delete (map=0xc03f9ee0, start=3243479040, end=3243610112) at ../../vm/vm_map.c:1872 #3 0xc02d35e3 in kmem_malloc (map=0xc03f9ee0, size=131072, flags=1) at ../../vm/vm_kern.c:365 #4 0xc01baed7 in malloc (size=131072, type=0xc0f6ab60, flags=1) at ../../kern/kern_malloc.c:188 The process that calls mallocs() hangs at the following statement inside vm_object_page_remove(): vm_page_sleep_busy(p, TRUE, vmopar) At the same time, the entire system also freezes. I am wondering if I am doing the right thing here. Maybe 128K is too large for such a use? I am using 4.4-Release. Any suggestion is appreciated. -Zhihui To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Fiskars UPS - solution!
doc. dr. Marjan Mihelin, dipl. ing. wrote: Hi We are using from 1993 Fiskars UPS 0.8 A UPS unit (Type UPS 1008A- 10EU, PartNo: 10 02 891 Rev A1, SerNo: 119355 9345, Made in Finland) and few days ago the Battery failure control light started blinking. We replaced accus (5 pcs 12V 4Ah) and we charged them for 48 hours but the control light is still blinking. Do you have any advice what to do? Where it is possible to get the electrical plans of this unit? I would be grateful for any help. try to measure the battery voltage and the load current. perhaps the batterys are low level decharged,,, (a 12v battery have less than 10V). the try to load it a while with a battery loader (perhaps a car-battery loader) and limit the current to 300ma. that should work.. Finally, we found the proper solution. Only the proper reset was needed. Inside of the unit, close to the front panel there is an 8 position DIP switch. The uppermost switch should change the position and then the reset button on the front panel should be pressed. The unit reset is finalized by turning the unit off, then DIP switch should be pressed into the initial position and when you switch the unit on, everything is OK. Thank you for all advises and best regards Marjan Hi, thanks for the personal cc, but I don't have a Fiskars, it sounds useful info though, so I suggest you cd /usr/ports/*/nut ; grep MAINTAINER Makefile # (as fallback if next fails) make patch explore tree for author of Nut, mail him your notes to incorporate in nut-0.45.0.tar.gz (applicable to FreeBSD-4.4) That way your detective work gets to be saved for others :-) Cheers. Julian J.StaceyMunich Unix (FreeBSD, Linux etc) Independent Consultant Reduce costs to secure jobs: Use free software: http://bim.bsn.com/~jhs/free/ Ihr Rauchen = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz ! Schnupftabak probieren ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
help
help To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: help
Uhh..with what? On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Andrey Pugachev wrote: help To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message --- Geoff Mohler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: BPF - Packet Reception
netgraph? On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Rajesh P Jain wrote: Thanks for all the replies. In linux, the packet reception can be done efficiently through the usage of ethernet sockets. In FreeBSD, one of the option is by using the BPF. But, as already commented, BPF is not a high performance device. So, Can anyone give an alternative way in FreeBSD (other than modifying the driver code), so that high packet-rate reception can be done by without dropping any of the packets ? Thanks in advance Raj -- On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:05:33 Robert Watson wrote: On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Rajesh P Jain wrote: We are trying to use BPF (Packet Filter) pseduo device to send and receive the packets. Even if there is a slight delay (Some processing has to be done on the read packet) between the issuing of 'read' call, so many packets are getting dropped. Is there a way to attach a callback function to the opened device, so that on a packet arrival, this function is being called. We polling the device is always risky thing as we may loose some packet. Any help on this would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards, -Raj There are a number of things that can be done to improve BPF's behavior under high volume, including setting a larger in-kernel buffer for BPF (using BIOCSBLEN), as well as implementing the equivilent of interupt coallescing when delivering packets to userland, through the use of a timeout (BIOCSRTIMEOUT, BIOCIMMEDIATE), which can increase throughput. While BPF is not able to handle extremely high packet rates, due to it performing memory copies and simple virtual machine execution, I've quite successfully used it to do userland packet forwarding (read, process, send) in the 100mbps range on moderately equipped machines. Depending on the nature of the packets you're capturing, optimizing your BPF code, or feeding it code that matches more specifically, can also impact performance. The performance of BPF is often directly associated with the amount of userland context switching going on: for example, running my BPF-based packet forwarding program at the same time as tcpdump would easily halve the throughput by making the number of context switches proportional to the number of packets delivered. A single process performing BPF operations will perform *much* better on an unloaded machine. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: help
Take it easy on the poor guy! There have been many an occasion when all I could say was help...actually help m plse. Of course never when dealing with FreeBSD! (not the) Mike Smith Geoff Mohler wrote: Uhh..with what? On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Andrey Pugachev wrote: help To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message --- Geoff Mohler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds (fwd)
Hi, This problem is still ongoing; unfortunately I haven't seen a reply about it from questions. Maybe someone here knows what's up? -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:08:38 -0800 (PST) From: David Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds We've recently started using FreeBSD 4.4 for production servers, in an environment where servers between 3.2 and 4.3 have had no trouble. Starting with 4.4, the servers have been booting up without being able to see the network for around 50 seconds. tcpdump indicates that the gateway isn't responding to the ARP request for x.x.x.1 right away. However, the gateway responds immediately to ARP requests from 3.2 through 4.3 machines. All other ARP requests are responded to immediately (ie, other FreeBSD 3.2-4.4 servers, even before the gateway responds) I was wondering if a) anyone else has been experiencing similar trouble, and b) if anything non-obvious has changed in the way FreeBSD ARP request packets are sent that would cause this? Our network runs on primarily Cisco hardware, and the servers are connected to Catalyst (29xx I believe) switches. The gateway is a Cisco somethingorother router. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write pages in Windows NT world? This is tricky feature of NT memory manager. When several processes (or threads) allocate identical write-enabled memory pages, system does not allocate physical memory for each process data at once. The NT kernel allocates only one copy of write-enabled memory region. But when this memory being written, system allocates memory for changed (written) pages and copies data to them. So identical write-enabled memory regions being stored in physical space (RAM/page file) only once (shared read-only .text code sections well known for ages). Each thread/process can read and write such write-enabled memory areas not bothering about concurrent access. Each process lives in its own address space and physically shared or unique pages are being mapped into this 4G (or more) linear address space. So I just curious, whether some similar feature available in FreeBSD kernel. If not, this will be not a problem. Here is a small joke -- 10 byte (1 line) NT command processor script to kill any known NT family operating system. Even C2-secure rated by NSA's TSEC(Orange Book) systems including Windows NT Workstation/Server 4.0 build 1381 (release) up to SP 6.0a, Windows 2000 and XP clones. When string \t\b\b* being written as a first string on new console, the whole thing dies. Depending on system configuration, NT reboots, hangs or displays Blue Screen of Death (BSOD): The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0xc21a (0xe12535e8, 0xc005, 0x5ffc9d68, 0x00a3fa44). Microsoft Windows NT [v15.1381]. A full dump was not saved. Here is sophisticated :) Windows NT family killer just for fun and researches. Run from parent process with no console preallocated -- from GUI shell, Start\Run menu etc. The more backspaces being typed, the more NT clones being killed (it seems, backspaces overwrites valuable kernel data stored before console instance buffer): section 1 of uuencode 5.20 of file killnt.cmdby R.E.M. begin 644 killnt.cmd *05C:\@0@(*@@( ` end sum -r/size 38770/45 section (from begin to end) sum -r/size 33593/10 entire input file If no task writes data in backgound, this is quite safe -- no data lost after reboot. Have fun. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds (fwd)
Seeing the tcpdump would be informative. D-man -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Kirchner Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds (fwd) Hi, This problem is still ongoing; unfortunately I haven't seen a reply about it from questions. Maybe someone here knows what's up? -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:08:38 -0800 (PST) From: David Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds We've recently started using FreeBSD 4.4 for production servers, in an environment where servers between 3.2 and 4.3 have had no trouble. Starting with 4.4, the servers have been booting up without being able to see the network for around 50 seconds. tcpdump indicates that the gateway isn't responding to the ARP request for x.x.x.1 right away. However, the gateway responds immediately to ARP requests from 3.2 through 4.3 machines. All other ARP requests are responded to immediately (ie, other FreeBSD 3.2-4.4 servers, even before the gateway responds) I was wondering if a) anyone else has been experiencing similar trouble, and b) if anything non-obvious has changed in the way FreeBSD ARP request packets are sent that would cause this? Our network runs on primarily Cisco hardware, and the servers are connected to Catalyst (29xx I believe) switches. The gateway is a Cisco somethingorother router. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:54:17PM -, Andrey Pugachev wrote: I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write? As far as I am aware, the BSD family of operating systems have always used copy-on-write (at least since 4.3BSD). Ceri -- keep a mild groove on To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, setantae wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:54:17PM -, Andrey Pugachev wrote: I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write? As far as I am aware, the BSD family of operating systems have always used copy-on-write (at least since 4.3BSD). My awareness is different and tells me that 4.3BSD had just vfork() but not COW yet, while System V had it years before. Sorry if I am wrong. Gérard. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:31:31PM +0100, Gérard Roudier wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, setantae wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:54:17PM -, Andrey Pugachev wrote: I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write? As far as I am aware, the BSD family of operating systems have always used copy-on-write (at least since 4.3BSD). My awareness is different and tells me that 4.3BSD had just vfork() but not COW yet, while System V had it years before. Sorry if I am wrong. You're not. My bad. At home now, and checking my daemon book I see SystemV, Release 2 got it in 1984, and it was introduced in 4.4BSD in 1993. Ceri -- keep a mild groove on To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Possible vmopar bug? (was malloc deadlock with M_NOWAIT)
VM gurus: This seems to be bug!
This morning I sent an email (attached below) regarding a hang at the
vmopar state. While waiting for responses, I use Google Advanced Groups
Search looking for vmopar in all FreeBSD archived mailing lists and I
did find the following message posted by Xavier Galleri early this year
(Sorry for this long URL line):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A71C39F.8060109_enition.com%40ns.sol.netoutput=gplain
I run his program following his instructions in README file and the
process indeed hangs just as he described:
10459 root -18 0 868K 436K vmopar 0:00 0.00% 0.00% mytest
The file system intensive operation I used is (he suggested using tar):
find /usr/src -name *.c -exec grep hello /dev/null {} \;
After the process is stuck in vmopar, I can not even use reboot to
boot the system.
This seems to be a bug in the VM system (I am using 4.4-Release).
I hope some one can track this down. In this case, two different people
(Xavier Galleri and me) can hang the system with different programs. I
think it is worth investigation.
---
My original email sent this morning follows:
I am trying to allocate a dynamic number of large memory (128K) by
malloc(128K, M_xxx, M_NOWAIT). Although this is not done in an interrupt
routine, I figure I'd better use M_NOWAIT so that I can deal with the
situation when the memory is low. However, I experience the following
deadlock:
#1 0xc02d8f4d in vm_object_page_remove (object=0xc03fa060, start=5690,
end=5722, clean_only=0) at ../../vm/vm_object.c:1459
#2 0xc02d53ce in vm_map_delete (map=0xc03f9ee0, start=3243479040,
end=3243610112) at ../../vm/vm_map.c:1872
#3 0xc02d35e3 in kmem_malloc (map=0xc03f9ee0, size=131072, flags=1)
at ../../vm/vm_kern.c:365
#4 0xc01baed7 in malloc (size=131072, type=0xc0f6ab60, flags=1)
at ../../kern/kern_malloc.c:188
The process that calls mallocs() hangs at the following statement inside
vm_object_page_remove():
vm_page_sleep_busy(p, TRUE, vmopar)
At the same time, the entire system also freezes. I am wondering if I am
doing the right thing here. Maybe 128K is too large for such a use? I am
using 4.4-Release.
Thanks for any help.
-Zhihui
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds (fwd)
As Cisco switches have STP enabled by default on all ports, maybe a reboot of an 4.4 system is seen as a change in link state, so Catalyst holds the port STP-blocked for a couple of seconds before putting it to forwarding state. Did you try disabling STP on Catalyst eth ports? Marko David Kirchner wrote: Hi, This problem is still ongoing; unfortunately I haven't seen a reply about it from questions. Maybe someone here knows what's up? -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:08:38 -0800 (PST) From: David Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FreeBSD4.4, fxp, no net after ifconfig for ~50 seconds We've recently started using FreeBSD 4.4 for production servers, in an environment where servers between 3.2 and 4.3 have had no trouble. Starting with 4.4, the servers have been booting up without being able to see the network for around 50 seconds. tcpdump indicates that the gateway isn't responding to the ARP request for x.x.x.1 right away. However, the gateway responds immediately to ARP requests from 3.2 through 4.3 machines. All other ARP requests are responded to immediately (ie, other FreeBSD 3.2-4.4 servers, even before the gateway responds) I was wondering if a) anyone else has been experiencing similar trouble, and b) if anything non-obvious has changed in the way FreeBSD ARP request packets are sent that would cause this? Our network runs on primarily Cisco hardware, and the servers are connected to Catalyst (29xx I believe) switches. The gateway is a Cisco somethingorother router. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
On 27-Nov-2001 Andrey Pugachev wrote: I am just curious, can FreeBSD kernel perform function called copy-on-write pages in Windows NT world? This is tricky feature of NT memory manager. When several processes (or threads) allocate identical write-enabled memory pages, system does not allocate physical memory for each process data at once. The NT kernel allocates only one copy of write-enabled memory region. FreeBSD does support COW when doing things like loading shared libraries and forking processes. I don't have an exact list or anything, but rather just remembering things mentioned on lists etc.. Maybe worth looking in the list archives for a more authorative answer. --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
¶W ¬¯ ªº ºô ¯¸ DvgpOIpCS7wynsEsi8OMONWfk02z5
**¥x _ÆW _´« _©d _Ñ _¼Ö_ ³¡** : http://210.64.184.194/¤J·|»¡©úÀÉ.exe **ÂÅ _¤Ñ_ ¸É_ ©« _¤u_ §@ _«Ç _³Ì_ ·s _¥Ø _¿ý ** : http://210.64.184.203/³Ì·s¸É©«¥Ø¿ý.exe ***¥» _«H_¥Ñ _«Â¤O¶Ç¼½_ ¥N _¬° _ µo_ °e*** To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
¼s §i ¤j ¬Ý ªO O0qCvBqSVXuko0tlToO
¥xÆW´«©dѼֳ¡ : http://210.64.184.194/¤J·|»¡©úÀÉ.exe ÂŤѸɩ«¤u§@«Ç³Ì·s¥Ø¿ý : http://210.64.184.203/³Ì·s¸É©«¥Ø¿ý.exe ¥»«H¥Ñ «Â¤O¶Ç¼½ ¥N ¬° µo °e To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?
FreeBSD has superior VM, tell me what NT can do while FreeBSD can not. It is easy: FreeBSD can not perform excellent lockup/reboot when \t\b\b. being printed on the console screen. :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. He is going to be sending me a copy of his preliminary report later today, and he doesn't mind sharing it. I'm a little concerned about the Them vs. Us attitude such a report could cause. He's not out to show that Linux is better than FreeBSD; on the contrary, he would be a lot happier if the results were in favour of FreeBSD, since otherwise he has to do something about it. I'd like a few of us to take a look at what he's done first, and either point out where he can tune the FreeBSD system, or how to find and eliminate the bottlenecks. Who's interested? Greg -- Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
Sign me up Greg, I would love to assist, I also have performance tuned many systems even in a very secured state, just to get the last ounce out of them. Id be hapy to read/review on the results anyone has. Greg Lehey wrote: I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. He is going to be sending me a copy of his preliminary report later today, and he doesn't mind sharing it. I'm a little concerned about the Them vs. Us attitude such a report could cause. He's not out to show that Linux is better than FreeBSD; on the contrary, he would be a lot happier if the results were in favour of FreeBSD, since otherwise he has to do something about it. I'd like a few of us to take a look at what he's done first, and either point out where he can tune the FreeBSD system, or how to find and eliminate the bottlenecks. Who's interested? Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
RE: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I'd be interested in the results, as well as potential for tuning that may not be general knowledge (i.e. not mentioned in tuning(7)). Regards. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of KERBERUS Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 4:11 PM To: Greg Lehey Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux? Sign me up Greg, I would love to assist, I also have performance tuned many systems even in a very secured state, just to get the last ounce out of them. Id be hapy to read/review on the results anyone has. Greg Lehey wrote: I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. He is going to be sending me a copy of his preliminary report later today, and he doesn't mind sharing it. I'm a little concerned about the Them vs. Us attitude such a report could cause. He's not out to show that Linux is better than FreeBSD; on the contrary, he would be a lot happier if the results were in favour of FreeBSD, since otherwise he has to do something about it. I'd like a few of us to take a look at what he's done first, and either point out where he can tune the FreeBSD system, or how to find and eliminate the bottlenecks. Who's interested? Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
I've just been talking with a friend of mine from the Samba team. He's about to change jobs, and a lot of his work in future will involve FreeBSD. He's just been doing some performance testing, and while the numbers are pretty even (since he discovered soft updates :-), he's noticing some significant performance differences, particularly on the TCP/IP area. FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box with the hope that they can get consistent results. (Unfortunately, FreeBSD 3.X is out because I convinced them that we needed to upgrade to 4.X due to security measures, so we can't go back.) Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. I know my lack of information isn't helping much, and that I've not done much to help debug the problem. However, all my attempts to track down what is causing this from a high-level (w/out digging into the code itself and analyzing tcpdump output) have come up empty. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Williams write s: Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. For what it's worth I have disabled newreno at my customer sites as well and felt and heard less bogosity since. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:41:18 -0700 Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box with the hope that they can get consistent results. (Unfortunately, FreeBSD 3.X is out because I convinced them that we needed to upgrade to 4.X due to security measures, so we can't go back.) And they somehow think any variant of Linux is going to be better on this point? My recent experience with Linux would say otherwise, but that was on an Intel Architecture Labs variant that is somewhat out of date, too. Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. Ick. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
Note, some of the performance issues were made better by disabling the TCP newreno implementation, but it's still poor and very inconsistent for hosts not on the local network, while the Linux box next to it gets much more consistent results. For what it's worth I have disabled newreno at my customer sites as well and felt and heard less bogosity since. It's actually pretty awful. However, even with the fix I merged back into RELENG_4, the performance with/without newreno is still *much* worse (in terms of consistantly giving the same results) than the code in FreeBSD 3.x. The interesting thing is that the application that's getting the most press is one of our field technicians downloading a file over anonymous ftp by hand, so it's not like we're generating tons of traffic, or alot of parallel connections. The connections hang, abort, and those that complete have numbers that are *all* over the map. However, when connected to a Linux box on the same network, none of these bad things occur. :( (And, we've verified the network is up by running ping in another window.) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
On Wednesday, 28 November 2001 at 1:56:14 -0700, Wes Peters wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:41:18 -0700 Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box with the hope that they can get consistent results. (Unfortunately, FreeBSD 3.X is out because I convinced them that we needed to upgrade to 4.X due to security measures, so we can't go back.) And they somehow think any variant of Linux is going to be better on this point? My recent experience with Linux would say otherwise, but that was on an Intel Architecture Labs variant that is somewhat out of date, too. Well, it ties in with Richard's experience. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD performing worse than Linux?
FWIW, I'm seeing this as well. However, this appears to be a new occurance, as we were using a FreeBSD 3.X system for our reference test platform. I recently updated it to FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE, and I'm getting nothing but complaints about broken connections, poor performance, and very inconsistent results. They are now considering installing Linux on this box with the hope that they can get consistent results. (Unfortunately, FreeBSD 3.X is out because I convinced them that we needed to upgrade to 4.X due to security measures, so we can't go back.) And they somehow think any variant of Linux is going to be better on this point? More to the point, it *IS* better with Linux. :( (At least, comparing the latest FreeBSD with the 'latest' version of some release of Linux. I'm not sure if it's Mandrake, or RedHat, or what. I wasn't involved in that end of things.) I'm still trying to figure out if it's some simple configuration that's causing the problems, but the field trial folks are starting to get annoyed with my constant 'excuses' as to why we shouldn't just switch to Linux. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
