Re: freebsd 5.3, gmirror raid 1, PROBLEM
sara lidgey wrote: Hi All, I've been running a server using FreeBSD 5.3 and gmirror to mirror two identical IDE hard drives. Its been running great for over a year. But recently everything went down and when I reboot and put a monitor on it I get the following errors on screen: GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm0: provider ad1 disconnected GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm0: provider mirror/gm0 destroyed GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm0: rebuilding provider ad0 stopped Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode... (this is followed by details about the fault) These errors are preceded by other related error information that flys by on the screen and I have no way of seeing them again. Does anyone now what steps I should take to figure what is going on and try to recover data or get the machine to boot? Hi, Have you tried disconnecting ad1 and booting only with ad0? Maybe one of the drives just died on you. Try booting the system with one drive at a time connecting as a master (Primary on IDE1). Let us know how it goes. Cheers, Mikhail. -- Mikhail Goriachev Webanoide Telephone: +61 (0)3 62252501 Mobile Phone: +61 (0)4 38255158 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.webanoide.org PGP Key ID: 0x4E148A3B PGP Key Fingerprint: D96B 7C14 79A5 8824 B99D 9562 F50E 2F5D 4E14 8A3B ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd 5.3, gmirror raid 1, PROBLEM
Hi, The machine won't boot from either drive connected as a master. I tried them one at a time. I'm guessing I'll have to boot from a CD but don't know the process. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, S. Mikhail Goriachev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sara lidgey wrote: Hi All, I've been running a server using FreeBSD 5.3 and gmirror to mirror two identical IDE hard drives. Its been running great for over a year. But recently everything went down and when I reboot and put a monitor on it I get the following errors on screen: GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm0: provider ad1 disconnected GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm0: provider mirror/gm0 destroyed GEOM_MIRROR: Device gm0: rebuilding provider ad0 stopped Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode... (this is followed by details about the fault) These errors are preceded by other related error information that flys by on the screen and I have no way of seeing them again. Does anyone now what steps I should take to figure what is going on and try to recover data or get the machine to boot? Hi, Have you tried disconnecting ad1 and booting only with ad0? Maybe one of the drives just died on you. Try booting the system with one drive at a time connecting as a master (Primary on IDE1). Let us know how it goes. Cheers, Mikhail. -- Mikhail Goriachev Webanoide Telephone: +61 (0)3 62252501 Mobile Phone: +61 (0)4 38255158 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.webanoide.org PGP Key ID: 0x4E148A3B PGP Key Fingerprint: D96B 7C14 79A5 8824 B99D 9562 F50E 2F5D 4E14 8A3B - The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd 5.3, gmirror raid 1, PROBLEM
sara lidgey wrote: Hi, The machine won't boot from either drive connected as a master. I tried them one at a time. I'm guessing I'll have to boot from a CD but don't know the process. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, S. Hmmm... I can only suggest using a livecd, for instance freesbie. Once you boot it, fsck(8) file systems on those hard drives. Maybe it's just some consistency problem. If you have a spare freebsd box, then you could try mounting those drives on it and poke around. Or, you could even chuck those drives into another box (one at a time), boot it up and see what happens (assuming your kernel is pretty much generic). That is just to rule out busted components on current box. There must be a proper and better way for doing this though. Cheers, Mikhail. -- Mikhail Goriachev Webanoide Telephone: +61 (0)3 62252501 Mobile Phone: +61 (0)4 38255158 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.webanoide.org PGP Key ID: 0x4E148A3B PGP Key Fingerprint: D96B 7C14 79A5 8824 B99D 9562 F50E 2F5D 4E14 8A3B ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Boot issues - reposted
On Saturday 21 May 2005 03:42, the author Thomas Hurst contributed to the dialogue on Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Boot issues - reposted: * Vizion ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This system has been built in a mini ATX case and has a Proxim Harmony 802.11a Model 8150 PCI card on (I am on a boat - then intention is to be able to disconnect it from the ships network, lug it to a position in range of a wireless network and do a portupgrade as the need arises chuckles). Is this card recognized by freebsd. Is there a suitable driver? How do I set it up? Looks like it's based on the Prism2 chipset, which should be supported by the wi(4) driver (man wi). kldload if_wi and see if it's detected, and follow the examples in the driver manpage to set it up. Aha -- actually I found it is based on the Atheros chips BUT is configured on the pci card to be recognized as fw!!! anyway your input made me get the card out and I now have it working.. Thanks David -- 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing May bound for Europe via Panama Canal. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Boot issues - reposted
* Vizion ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This system has been built in a mini ATX case and has a Proxim Harmony 802.11a Model 8150 PCI card on (I am on a boat - then intention is to be able to disconnect it from the ships network, lug it to a position in range of a wireless network and do a portupgrade as the need arises chuckles). Is this card recognized by freebsd. Is there a suitable driver? How do I set it up? Looks like it's based on the Prism2 chipset, which should be supported by the wi(4) driver (man wi). kldload if_wi and see if it's detected, and follow the examples in the driver manpage to set it up. 2. Uhicio [GIANT LOCKED] What does this mean? It means the uhci (USB Host Controller) driver isn't multi-processor safe, and thus needs to grab the Big Giant Lock around the kernel when it's doing stuff to operate safely. Don't worry about it; if you really want to get rid of it, it looks like it's been made MPSAFE in 5.4. 3. (da1:umass-sim0:0:0:1): Unretryable error What is the significance if any of these lines? USB mass storage devices use the SCSI Direct Access (da) driver. You don't have any memory cards in your card reader, so attempts to read from them to determine the size of the disks are producing an unretryable error. Again, this is normal. 4. I want to use energy saving (mainly to protect the drive from unnecessary risk of damage in rough weather) to turn off the hard drive when access is not required. How do I do that? Look at sysutils/ataidle. Taking measures to avoid unnecessary disk access is left as an exercise for the reader ;) -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst http://hur.st/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Boot issues - reposted
On Saturday 21 May 2005 03:42, the author Thomas Hurst contributed to the dialogue on Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Boot issues - reposted: * Vizion ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This system has been built in a mini ATX case and has a Proxim Harmony 802.11a Model 8150 PCI card on (I am on a boat - then intention is to be able to disconnect it from the ships network, lug it to a position in range of a wireless network and do a portupgrade as the need arises chuckles). Is this card recognized by freebsd. Is there a suitable driver? How do I set it up? Looks like it's based on the Prism2 chipset, which should be supported by the wi(4) driver (man wi). kldload if_wi and see if it's detected, and follow the examples in the driver manpage to set it up. 2. Uhicio [GIANT LOCKED] What does this mean? It means the uhci (USB Host Controller) driver isn't multi-processor safe, and thus needs to grab the Big Giant Lock around the kernel when it's doing stuff to operate safely. Don't worry about it; if you really want to get rid of it, it looks like it's been made MPSAFE in 5.4. 3. (da1:umass-sim0:0:0:1): Unretryable error What is the significance if any of these lines? USB mass storage devices use the SCSI Direct Access (da) driver. You don't have any memory cards in your card reader, so attempts to read from them to determine the size of the disks are producing an unretryable error. Again, this is normal. 4. I want to use energy saving (mainly to protect the drive from unnecessary risk of damage in rough weather) to turn off the hard drive when access is not required. How do I do that? Look at sysutils/ataidle. Taking measures to avoid unnecessary disk access is left as an exercise for the reader ;) Thankl you very much for a very helpful posting David -- 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing May bound for Europe via Panama Canal. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and NIS
I know this is going to be a hot in the dark for me since I left 4x behind quite a long while ago, but I seem to remember reading something about some compatibility issues between nis on 4x and 5x. There were changes that could be made to work around it, but wow...I just don't remember where I saw it. I think FreeBSD Diary, if you want to google there. On Thu, 19 May 2005, Micheal Patterson wrote: I'm running nfs/nis off of a FreeBSD 4.10 system. I have a secondary NIS master on a freebsd 5.3 system and so far, everything is cool between them. There is one thing that I've noticed that I've never seen before though. I have a nfs mount mounted but the permissions for the group show as $FreeBSD instead of the actual group it should be. I've checked my nis settings in /etc/group and have the standard +::: at the end. Anyone else seen this or can possibly explain why this isn't listing as the appropriate group? Thanks. -- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreebSD 5.3
Richard Verwayen wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 11.05.2005, 16:53 -0700 schrieb Dixit, Viraj: Folks, I have accidentally changed the permissions to my directories on my test system. Now I cannot login either on console using root or any other login account. I simply cannot login, the permissions change has done it. I get the login prompt but this is the message I get from the system when I log in. Help Thanks, An Idiot Here is the message: login: invalid script: /usr/libexec/login_krb-or-pwd Login incorrect What about single-user mode? RIchard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Look in the archives of this mailing list going back for 5 years.. You will find a bazillion howto's on logging in , in single user mode and mounting the stuff you need to fix. ;) good luck! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3
Kris Kennaway a écrit : On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:24:51PM +0200, Herv? Kergourlay wrote: I change the kernel with the following command sysctl kern.corefile=/cores/%U/%P%N.core Make sure those directories exist and are writable by the user. They won't be created automatically. checked, I force the 777 mode on the /cores directory And the %U directories? I create manually the 0 directory for root and the 114 for me with the same 777 mode is there any white papers to explain who to configure the core file configuration, perhaps I miss something hervé so big file are managed without any pain. correct ? Correct. thanks, I will test it Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 installation problem
simon butsana wrote: When trying to install FreeBSD 5.3 on my computer, I get the following error No disks found. But I can install without any problem Linux or Windows on that computer. The hard disk is IDE 160 GB (Western Digital). Does anyone have an idea on a solution? 5.4 just came out, it might be useful to try with that or with 4.11 instead, and see whether they do any better. The next step, or maybe the first step if you want to try with 5.3, is to try booting via safe mode via the startup menu, which disables ACPI, DMA, and all sorts of stuff, and may work enough to install (albeit slower and without powermanagement stuff). You should review and adjust other BIOS settings, such as making sure the BIOS sees the drive in LBA mode (set it directly if need be, don't use automatic). You might also double-check for a BIOS update for your hardware, that may help. -- -Chuck PS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and freebsd-questions@freebsd.org are the same mailing list, please don't cross-post the way one might do via Usenet. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3
Kris Kennaway a écrit : On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:24:51PM +0200, Herv? Kergourlay wrote: I change the kernel with the following command sysctl kern.corefile=/cores/%U/%P%N.core Make sure those directories exist and are writable by the user. They won't be created automatically. checked, I force the 777 mode on the /cores directory And the %U directories? here they are !!! don't know why today it's better ? hervé so big file are managed without any pain. correct ? Correct. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Herv? Kergourlay wrote: we are porting our product on FreeBSD 5.3 it's a backup product which is still running on FreeBSD 4.0 here's a list of questions after checking the documentation 1) PAM it's working, the only problem is with the null password users, the answer is allways NO. the nullok doesn't seem active here is my PAM file auth required /usr/lib/pam_unix.so nullok account required /usr/lib/pam_unix.so nullok Which PAM file? 5.3 doesn't use a single /etc/pam.conf. 5) where are generated the core files ? I change the kernel with the following command sysctl kern.corefile=/cores/%U/%P%N.core Make sure those directories exist and are writable by the user. They won't be created automatically. 6) 2 last questions :-) what about files more than 4GB, do I need to use specific APIs as open64, stat64 or the current open and stat API are managing the big file ? No. Kris pgpMJpYwPCp1M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3
Kris Kennaway a écrit : On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:33:03AM +0200, Herv? Kergourlay wrote: we are porting our product on FreeBSD 5.3 it's a backup product which is still running on FreeBSD 4.0 here's a list of questions after checking the documentation 1) PAM it's working, the only problem is with the null password users, the answer is allways NO. the nullok doesn't seem active here is my PAM file auth required /usr/lib/pam_unix.so nullok account required /usr/lib/pam_unix.so nullok Which PAM file? 5.3 doesn't use a single /etc/pam.conf. it's our pam file in /etc/pam.d directory with the name registered in the pam_start first parameter 5) where are generated the core files ? I change the kernel with the following command sysctl kern.corefile=/cores/%U/%P%N.core Make sure those directories exist and are writable by the user. They won't be created automatically. checked, I force the 777 mode on the /cores directory 6) 2 last questions :-) what about files more than 4GB, do I need to use specific APIs as open64, stat64 or the current open and stat API are managing the big file ? No. so big file are managed without any pain. correct ? Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:24:51PM +0200, Herv? Kergourlay wrote: I change the kernel with the following command sysctl kern.corefile=/cores/%U/%P%N.core Make sure those directories exist and are writable by the user. They won't be created automatically. checked, I force the 777 mode on the /cores directory And the %U directories? so big file are managed without any pain. correct ? Correct. Kris pgpPOgvif6e7F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreebSD 5.3
Am Mittwoch, den 11.05.2005, 16:53 -0700 schrieb Dixit, Viraj: Folks, I have accidentally changed the permissions to my directories on my test system. Now I cannot login either on console using root or any other login account. I simply cannot login, the permissions change has done it. I get the login prompt but this is the message I get from the system when I log in. Help Thanks, An Idiot Here is the message: login: invalid script: /usr/libexec/login_krb-or-pwd Login incorrect What about single-user mode? RIchard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 NVIDIA-1.0.7174 GLX extension problem
I had installed the nvidia-1.0.7174 from nvidia. I had used 1.0-6113 from ports. It works nice. But i wanted just to upgrade to the new NVIDIA Version. On 03 May 2005 12:08:40 -0400, Lowell Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have problem using NVIDIA-1.0.7174. It failed to load GLX. What i can do for this? This is a warnings and errors of my X.org log (WW) NV(0): Option CursorShadow is not used (EE) Failed to initialize GLX extension (NVIDIA X driver not found) I have attached the complete X.org log It turns out that you have not. My guess is that you need to use the nvidia driver (available from ports) instead of the nv one that comes with X.org. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 NVIDIA-1.0.7174 GLX extension problem
The new driver (March 31, 2005 release: NVIDIA-FreeBSD-x86-1.0-7174.tar.gz) downloaded from Nvidia's site works great in 5.3. you have to sysinstall and install the kernel sources for its make to work, or you will get this error: cant find: /usr/share/mk/bsd.kmod.mk Remember to update your /etc/X11/xorg.conf to change the driver nv to nvidia enjoy the open gl screensavers! Randy Dawson - Original Message - From: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 1:21 AM Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 NVIDIA-1.0.7174 GLX extension problem I had installed the nvidia-1.0.7174 from nvidia. I had used 1.0-6113 from ports. It works nice. But i wanted just to upgrade to the new NVIDIA Version. On 03 May 2005 12:08:40 -0400, Lowell Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have problem using NVIDIA-1.0.7174. It failed to load GLX. What i can do for this? This is a warnings and errors of my X.org log (WW) NV(0): Option CursorShadow is not used (EE) Failed to initialize GLX extension (NVIDIA X driver not found) I have attached the complete X.org log It turns out that you have not. My guess is that you need to use the nvidia driver (available from ports) instead of the nv one that comes with X.org. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 NVIDIA-1.0.7174 GLX extension problem
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have problem using NVIDIA-1.0.7174. It failed to load GLX. What i can do for this? This is a warnings and errors of my X.org log (WW) NV(0): Option CursorShadow is not used (EE) Failed to initialize GLX extension (NVIDIA X driver not found) I have attached the complete X.org log It turns out that you have not. My guess is that you need to use the nvidia driver (available from ports) instead of the nv one that comes with X.org. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd 5.3
On Sun, 2005-05-01 at 16:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: freebsd 5.3 is release and become stable version soon, i have a question, i wanna secure my freebsd box what should i do to optimize it? Try the handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security.html Rob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and forcible unmounts
Plug a USB mass-storage-type still camera, mount it, unplug it, and try to forcibly unmount it using 'umount -f'. The whole system hangs right away. Is it a known bug ? I can confirm this. FreeBSD-5.3-RELEASE-p9. Mark -- PGP: http://www.darklogik.org/pub/pgp/pgp.txt B776 43DC 8A5D EAF9 2126 9A67 A7DA 390F DEFF 9DD1 pgp1AMPSiYpvp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 X-Windows Config During Installation
On Apr 8, 2005 10:00 AM, WOLOSCHAK, FRANK, JR (FRANK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QUESTIONS: 1) Why doesn't the FreeBSD 5.3 install give configuration options for the X-Windows server and desktop? If you check out the handbook it states that the X installation has been removed from the instalation setup (which frankly is not a big issue for most users IMO due to the fact that few people would want to run X on a server platform which I recon would be a majority of the user base for FreeBSD). In any event they point to directions here: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x11.html 2) If the answer to #1 is that the Xorg implementation doesn't contain these, then please help me find the easiest way to setup the Gnome desktop following a new fresh installation. this should be outlined in the above doc. good luck. -pete -- ~~o0OO0o~~ Pete Wright www.nycbug.org NYC's *BSD User Group ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 X-Windows Config During Installation
On Apr 8, 2005 12:00 PM, WOLOSCHAK, FRANK, JR (FRANK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good Morning, I am having problems installing FreeBSD 5.3. It appears that the installation options do not include: Configure XFree86 Server and Configure XFree86 Desktop. I am aware that version 5.3 now uses Xorg vice Xfree86 as the default X-Windows system. That is correct Xorg is the new default X window system in 5.3 I am fluent in several varies of Unix (Solaris, HPUX, Red Hat, SCO), but am new to FreeBSD. When installing FreeBSD 5.0, I was given the 2 above options, and was able to set a Gnome Desktop. Numerous attempts to install FreeBSD 5.3, I was never given the above options, and although I was eventually able to get a brain-dead Gnome desktop to appear, I couldn't do anything with it. QUESTIONS: 1) Why doesn't the FreeBSD 5.3 install give configuration options for the X-Windows server and desktop? This I don't know the answer to but I'm assumiing it's because Xorg is the new X window system 2) If the answer to #1 is that the Xorg implementation doesn't contain these, then please help me find the easiest way to setup the Gnome desktop following a new fresh installation. Easiest way to set up X is to type at the command prompt when logged in as root: xorgconfig That will start a wizard which will ask questions about your hardware. Be sure to have these answers before you start such as what type of video card...hsync and vert refresh of your monitor. Once the wizard is done it will write a config file to use with X Make sure gnome is installed through sysinstall or through the ports After the configuration is done go into your home directory and edit (or create if it does not exist) .xinitrc and type in for gnome (though I'm unsure so you might want to look this up). gnome-session. My intent is to continue playing with FreeBSD, and explore kick start here at work. Thank you for your help, Have A Wonderful Day, Ivan Frank Ivan Woloschak AG Communication Systems 623.581.4123 Beeper: 888.235.4081 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3: Sharedlibs using sharedlibs (and Tcl)
--On onsdag, mars 16, 2005 20.13.03 +0100 Peter Much [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:35:16PM +0100, Palle Girgensohn wrote: ! ! --On onsdag, mars 16, 2005 11.43.31 +0100 Peter Much ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ! ! ! So, you're saying that pctclsh *can* access, but pgaccess *cannot*? ! Odd... ! I would expect they'd both use the same lib to connect, no? ! I'll have to ! ! They use the same libraries, yes. But Tcl interpreter seem to need more ! advice on where to find sub-functions in other libraries. It looks ! like this: ! ! pgtclsh -finds- libpgtcl.so -finds- libpq.so -finds- libkrb5.so ! pgaccess -loads- libpgtcl.so -finds- libpq.so -fails- libkrb5.so ! ! Uh, OK. I'm not qualified enough with linkers to answer this, I'm afraid. ! Did you try the pgsql-interfaces mailing list? Oh well, same with me. I sent a copy of one of my reports to that list, yes. But only got feedback that it will be evaluated by moderator, as I am not signed on that list. I'm actually no professional psql user - the database is just a small part of my installation, mainly logging the lowlevel error counts from my exabyte drives and providing reports about tape wearout. And the kerberos is just there for fun, as a reference installation. Nevertheless, I would think this is not a matter for the postgres community. Because this would happen the same way with any other application that provides Tcl support and kerberos support (or maybe also with other components of the system, if they are used from Tcl). So it seems either a Tcl problem or a linker/loader problem. Which, I cannot say - maybe both. ! And then I found that it is enough to place into libpq.so the explicit ! references to libkrb5 and the other kerberos libs. That is what the ! readelf -a output in my other mail shows. ! ! sounds like a better solution, yes... Shouldn't they always be there? ! Sounds like a bug to me? Thats the question. I just did a little more investigation (like reading manpages) and found out _WHY_ it does work for pgtclsh but not for pgaccess. There is a command ldd that shows nested library dependencies for any program. For pgtclsh it shows all the kerberos libs: bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/bin/pgtclsh /usr/local/bin/pgtclsh: libpgtcl.so.2 = /usr/local/lib/libpgtcl.so.2 (0x28075000) libpq.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libpq.so.3 (0x2807d000) libtcl84.so.1 = /usr/local/lib/libtcl84.so.1 (0x28097000) libm.so.3 = /lib/libm.so.3 (0x28135000) libkrb5.so.7 = /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.7 (0x2814f000) libasn1.so.7 = /usr/lib/libasn1.so.7 (0x28186000) libcrypto.so.3 = /lib/libcrypto.so.3 (0x281a6000) libroken.so.7 = /usr/lib/libroken.so.7 (0x2829b000) libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x282a9000) libcom_err.so.2 = /usr/lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0x282c1000) libz.so.2 = /lib/libz.so.2 (0x282c3000) libreadline.so.5 = /lib/libreadline.so.5 (0x282d3000) libutil.so.4 = /lib/libutil.so.4 (0x282ff000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x2830b000) libintl.so.6 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.6 (0x283e4000) libssl.so.3 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0x283ed000) libncurses.so.5 = /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x2841b000) libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x2845a000) But for libpgtcl.so (this is the first elf binary that pgaccess gets to see) it does not show these kerberos libraries (I use the old libpq.so here, not the one that I have modified): bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/lib/libpgtcl.so /usr/local/lib/libpgtcl.so: libpq.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libpq.so.3 (0x2815a000) libtcl84.so.1 = /usr/local/lib/libtcl84.so.1 (0x28174000) libm.so.3 = /lib/libm.so.3 (0x28212000) libintl.so.6 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.6 (0x2822c000) libssl.so.3 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0x28235000) libcrypto.so.3 = /lib/libcrypto.so.3 (0x28263000) libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28358000) Then the explanation became simple: these kerberos libraries get just LITERALLY LISTED WITHIN THE pgtclsh BINARY! And this is an impossible method for a Tcl script. bash-3.00# readelf -d /usr/local/bin/pgtclsh | grep krb5 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libkrb5.so.7] So now we have a full explanation for the behaviour, but not really a solution. Instead, this looks like a fundamental question about how to load nested elf sharedlibs from interpreter languages. From my technical viewpoint, the only solution that makes sense would be: every shared library must reference all other shared libraries from which it uses functions. The shared library cannot rely on the executable to do this job, because the executable may be an interpreter script, which neither is able to do this nor would it want to know them all. From this viewpoint, the linker command that creates libpq.so is defective. So You were right and its a problem for the postgresql developers. But as I am not competent with shared libraries and
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and too many files open...
# [EMAIL PROTECTED]: kern.maxfilesperproc: 5898 kern.maxusers: 384 My /boot/loader.conf looks like: kern.maxfiles=65536 kern.ipc.nmbclusters=64000 kern.ipc.nmbufs=256000 kern.maxproc=8192 kern.ipc.somaxconn=4096 So i do not get it, imho the configuration is just fine, but why do i get the message too many files open...? What does ulimit -a tell? Any limits in /etc/login.conf? Regards, Mario ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and too many files open...
Mario wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED]: kern.maxfilesperproc: 5898 kern.maxusers: 384 My /boot/loader.conf looks like: kern.maxfiles=65536 kern.ipc.nmbclusters=64000 kern.ipc.nmbufs=256000 kern.maxproc=8192 kern.ipc.somaxconn=4096 So i do not get it, imho the configuration is just fine, but why do i get the message too many files open...? What does ulimit -a tell? Any limits in /etc/login.conf? Well, limit tells me: limit cputime unlimited filesize unlimited datasize 524288 kbytes stacksize65536 kbytes coredumpsize 2048 kbytes memoryuseunlimited vmemoryuse unlimited descriptors 58982 memorylocked unlimited maxproc 7372 sbsize unlimited (in the future i have to fix cputime, filesize,... to accaptable value...) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and too many files open...
Hi, On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, i run into a problem on a FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE Applicationserver (2GB of RAM, 4GB Swap, Dual XEON 3.06Ghz). The box serves the xfrce4-panel for 80 Network Clients via ssh so the Users can start OpenOffice.org and firefox from that panel. It is goin very well, except a message (and also a problem) i run into the last day. If i tried to open firefox from a networkclient and received the message too many files open I saw that message on 3 different Network Clients and just after a fresh configure and the first time starting firfox on these Networkclients with that UID. I checked my configuration on the server about openfiles: kern.openfiles:9306 kern.maxfiles:65536 netstat -m 3952 mbufs in use 732/64000 mbuf clusters in use (current/max) [...] fstat shows me 393 on User A and on User B 3459. I did not check the other users. kern.maxfilesperproc: 5898 kern.maxusers: 384 My /boot/loader.conf looks like: kern.maxfiles=65536 kern.ipc.nmbclusters=64000 kern.ipc.nmbufs=256000 kern.maxproc=8192 kern.ipc.somaxconn=4096 So i do not get it, imho the configuration is just fine, but why do i get the message too many files open...? I think there is a separate limit for sockets, which you may be hitting. Check with sysctl kern.ipc | grep socket. $.02, /Mikko ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Antwort: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and too many files open...
Hi, On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, i run into a problem on a FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE Applicationserver (2GB of RAM, 4GB Swap, Dual XEON 3.06Ghz). The box serves the xfrce4-panel for 80 Network Clients via ssh so the Users can start OpenOffice.org and firefox from that panel. It is goin very well, except a message (and also a problem) i run into the last day. If i tried to open firefox from a networkclient and received the message too many files open I saw that message on 3 different Network Clients and just after a fresh configure and the first time starting firfox on these Networkclients with that UID. I checked my configuration on the server about openfiles: kern.openfiles:9306 kern.maxfiles:65536 netstat -m 3952 mbufs in use 732/64000 mbuf clusters in use (current/max) [...] fstat shows me 393 on User A and on User B 3459. I did not check the other users. kern.maxfilesperproc: 5898 kern.maxusers: 384 My /boot/loader.conf looks like: kern.maxfiles=65536 kern.ipc.nmbclusters=64000 kern.ipc.nmbufs=256000 kern.maxproc=8192 kern.ipc.somaxconn=4096 So i do not get it, imho the configuration is just fine, but why do i get the message too many files open...? I think there is a separate limit for sockets, which you may be hitting. Check with sysctl kern.ipc | grep socket. I checked that: # sysctl kern.ipc | grep socket kern.ipc.numopensockets: 1185 kern.ipc.maxsockets: 65536 Also this one looks fine imho. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 - Write failure on transfer
I have made some limited progress on the FreeBSD 5.3 Netserver problem outline below. I have been able to install FreeBSD 5.3 on a Netserver using the onboard SCSI card. However it will not install if I use the HP 1si NetRaid card for the SCSI drives. So it appears to be having a problem with the HP 1si NetRaid card. Any suggestions or advice? Lino Webzone lists wrote: Further to this problem, I have tried installing FreeBSD5.3 on a second hp netserver and I continue to get the same problem during the install process. Write failure on transfer! (wrote -1 bytes of 1425408 bytes) After two weeks of stuffing around I am giving up on 5.3 - there is clearly something wrong with 5.3 - there does not appear to be anything wrong with the hardware - its appears to be a FreeBSD 5.3 issue -. I have gone back to 4.10 which installs fine. Somewhere between 4.10 and 5.3 something has broken in relation to an installation on a netserver box. Has anyone else got a hp netserver LC2000r or similar box and been able to get 5.3 installed? Lino lists wrote: It looks like it is having a problem relating to the mounting the drives. When I rerun the FreeBSD5.3 install a second time - it lists the drives from the first install but they are missing the mount locations. Any suggestions on a work around? Lino lists wrote: Loren M. Lang wrote: On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 03:53:33PM +1030, Lino Fusco wrote: Hi, I am a newbie to this list and I hope I am posting to the correct list - apologies if I am off target. I am installing FreeBSD 5.3 on a hp netserver LC2000r. The box is a dual processor P3 with three scsi2 drives running in a raid1 configuration with one hot spare. We have six of these boxes. Three of them are running FreeBSD 4.8 or 4.9 without a hitch. I decided to install 5.3 from CD on a fourth box and I am having a problem. I go through the install process. When it goes to write the file structure to the drives it does this in a around 1 second - this seems very fast. Then it starts copying from the CD and I quickly get the following error: Write failure on transfer! (wrote -1 bytes of 1425408 bytes) I click ok and the next error message is: unable to transfer the base distribution from acd0, do you want to try to retrieve it again?. So this has started me troubleshooting the possible causes of the problem: 1) First stop was to suspect the freebsd iso I had burnt was suspect. So I re burnt the cd and the problem persisted. I then suspected the ISO I had downloaded was corrupted. So I downloaded it again, burnt the cd but the problem still persisted. 2) I then suspected the second copy could have come from a cache and therefore may have the same problem as the first copy - so I checked the md5 signature but it lines up with the original from freebsd.org 3) I suspected the CD Rom drive - so I swapped it with one of our other Netserver boxes - problem still persisted. 4)I suspected a drive formatting problem - so I went back into the SCSI software, redid the raid drives and reformatted them - problem still persisted. 5) I suspected another hardware problem - so I pulled out FreeBSD 4.9 to see if that would install - and it did install without any errors. That sort of discounts there being any hardware problems. It points to something specific to freebsd 5.3. So this is where I have got to - FreeBSD 4.9 will install without errors but 5.3 will not install. I suspect the problem has to do with the initial setting up of the file structure - 5.3 is doing this in about one second whereas 4.9 takes closer to a minute to do this. Any thoughts or suggestion? I believe FreeBSD 5.3 does support using UFS 1 in the install, just check the option in the disklabel program, but if the partitioning also fails then that may not be the problem. Lino Webzone ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, Tried setting the partitions to UFS1 - FreeBSD 5.3 then takes closer to a minute to setup the partitions just like 4.9 - but still get the same error message when it goes to copy the files. Thanks but did not work. Lino ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3: Sharedlibs using sharedlibs (and Tcl)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:35:16PM +0100, Palle Girgensohn wrote: ! ! --On onsdag, mars 16, 2005 11.43.31 +0100 Peter Much ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ! ! ! So, you're saying that pctclsh *can* access, but pgaccess *cannot*? ! Odd... ! I would expect they'd both use the same lib to connect, no? ! I'll have to ! ! They use the same libraries, yes. But Tcl interpreter seem to need more ! advice on where to find sub-functions in other libraries. It looks ! like this: ! ! pgtclsh -finds- libpgtcl.so -finds- libpq.so -finds- libkrb5.so ! pgaccess -loads- libpgtcl.so -finds- libpq.so -fails- libkrb5.so ! ! Uh, OK. I'm not qualified enough with linkers to answer this, I'm afraid. ! Did you try the pgsql-interfaces mailing list? Oh well, same with me. I sent a copy of one of my reports to that list, yes. But only got feedback that it will be evaluated by moderator, as I am not signed on that list. I'm actually no professional psql user - the database is just a small part of my installation, mainly logging the lowlevel error counts from my exabyte drives and providing reports about tape wearout. And the kerberos is just there for fun, as a reference installation. Nevertheless, I would think this is not a matter for the postgres community. Because this would happen the same way with any other application that provides Tcl support and kerberos support (or maybe also with other components of the system, if they are used from Tcl). So it seems either a Tcl problem or a linker/loader problem. Which, I cannot say - maybe both. ! And then I found that it is enough to place into libpq.so the explicit ! references to libkrb5 and the other kerberos libs. That is what the ! readelf -a output in my other mail shows. ! ! sounds like a better solution, yes... Shouldn't they always be there? ! Sounds like a bug to me? Thats the question. I just did a little more investigation (like reading manpages) and found out _WHY_ it does work for pgtclsh but not for pgaccess. There is a command ldd that shows nested library dependencies for any program. For pgtclsh it shows all the kerberos libs: bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/bin/pgtclsh /usr/local/bin/pgtclsh: libpgtcl.so.2 = /usr/local/lib/libpgtcl.so.2 (0x28075000) libpq.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libpq.so.3 (0x2807d000) libtcl84.so.1 = /usr/local/lib/libtcl84.so.1 (0x28097000) libm.so.3 = /lib/libm.so.3 (0x28135000) libkrb5.so.7 = /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.7 (0x2814f000) libasn1.so.7 = /usr/lib/libasn1.so.7 (0x28186000) libcrypto.so.3 = /lib/libcrypto.so.3 (0x281a6000) libroken.so.7 = /usr/lib/libroken.so.7 (0x2829b000) libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x282a9000) libcom_err.so.2 = /usr/lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0x282c1000) libz.so.2 = /lib/libz.so.2 (0x282c3000) libreadline.so.5 = /lib/libreadline.so.5 (0x282d3000) libutil.so.4 = /lib/libutil.so.4 (0x282ff000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x2830b000) libintl.so.6 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.6 (0x283e4000) libssl.so.3 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0x283ed000) libncurses.so.5 = /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x2841b000) libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x2845a000) But for libpgtcl.so (this is the first elf binary that pgaccess gets to see) it does not show these kerberos libraries (I use the old libpq.so here, not the one that I have modified): bash-3.00# ldd /usr/local/lib/libpgtcl.so /usr/local/lib/libpgtcl.so: libpq.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libpq.so.3 (0x2815a000) libtcl84.so.1 = /usr/local/lib/libtcl84.so.1 (0x28174000) libm.so.3 = /lib/libm.so.3 (0x28212000) libintl.so.6 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.6 (0x2822c000) libssl.so.3 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0x28235000) libcrypto.so.3 = /lib/libcrypto.so.3 (0x28263000) libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28358000) Then the explanation became simple: these kerberos libraries get just LITERALLY LISTED WITHIN THE pgtclsh BINARY! And this is an impossible method for a Tcl script. bash-3.00# readelf -d /usr/local/bin/pgtclsh | grep krb5 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libkrb5.so.7] So now we have a full explanation for the behaviour, but not really a solution. Instead, this looks like a fundamental question about how to load nested elf sharedlibs from interpreter languages. From my technical viewpoint, the only solution that makes sense would be: every shared library must reference all other shared libraries from which it uses functions. The shared library cannot rely on the executable to do this job, because the executable may be an interpreter script, which neither is able to do this nor would it want to know them all. From this viewpoint, the linker command that creates libpq.so is defective. So You were right and its a problem for the postgresql developers. But as I am not competent with shared libraries and development systems and such stuff, I would very much appreciate
Re: FreeBSD 5.3+ Vinum or Gvinum
Andrea, I have started testing with gstripe and have had good results to this point. I'm still a little unclear about how to make my stripe persistent after a reboot? My server consists of three drives. A 40GB drive that has the operating system and two 200Gb drives that I'm using for the raid 0 volume. I was also curious about a couple of other things. - There is a .snap directory on the volume. Is this used by gstripe? - I changed the mode to fast and didn't notice any difference in my basic performance testing. Is there any advantage of using fast? - I used newfs -O 2 to create a UFS2 file system on the volume. Is this treated like any other UFS2 volume that can utilize fsck, etc? - How resiliant is this volume if the system were to crash? --Thanks! Nick On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:48:39 +0100, Andrea Venturoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to set up a raid 0 volume on my 5.3 server using two identical SATA drives.After reading through a number of documents I noticed that there are two related utilities to do this, Vinum and Gvinum. Which utility should be used? It's my understanding that Gvinum is the most current and should be used on 5.3+? Does the hadbook refer to Vinum, Gvinum or both? I'd reccomend you none of them; look here for detailed reasons: http://people.freebsd.org/~rse/mirror/. In brief, I've experienced severe panics with vinum after an upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3 and gvinum is marked as alpha software and poorly documented. I'm quite happy with gmirror now, which the tutorial above describes. You would use gstripe instead. bye av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3+ Vinum or Gvinum
Nick Pavlica wrote: Andrea, I have started testing with gstripe and have had good results to this point. I'm still a little unclear about how to make my stripe persistent after a reboot? My server consists of three drives. A 40GB drive that has the operating system and two 200Gb drives that I'm using for the raid 0 volume. I was also curious about a couple of other things. If you made the stripe using something like gstripe label -v -s somenumber data /dev/mumble1 /dev/mumble2 then it will be persistent subject to gstripe being loaded in the kernel - use gstripe load or build a kernel with options GEOM_STRIPE You see something like GEOM_STRIPE: Device data2 created (id=889964967). GEOM_STRIPE: Disk da0 attached to data2. GEOM_LABEL: Label for provider da1 is ufs/data. GEOM_STRIPE: Disk da2 attached to data2. GEOM_STRIPE: Device data2 activated. In the boot messages (device names will vary - I'm using two 300GB USB drives) - There is a .snap directory on the volume. Is this used by gstripe? Nope that's a ufs2 thing - I used newfs -O 2 to create a UFS2 file system on the volume. Is this treated like any other UFS2 volume that can utilize fsck, etc? Yes - although you might want to specify a block size as the defaults tend to assume lots of small files which is not always the case for very large stripe sets. - How resiliant is this volume if the system were to crash? The same as any other volume except that you have twice the chance of a hard drive failure which would be fatal to the volume. --Thanks! Nick On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:48:39 +0100, Andrea Venturoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to set up a raid 0 volume on my 5.3 server using two identical SATA drives.After reading through a number of documents I noticed that there are two related utilities to do this, Vinum and Gvinum. Which utility should be used? It's my understanding that Gvinum is the most current and should be used on 5.3+? Does the hadbook refer to Vinum, Gvinum or both? I'd reccomend you none of them; look here for detailed reasons: http://people.freebsd.org/~rse/mirror/. In brief, I've experienced severe panics with vinum after an upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3 and gvinum is marked as alpha software and poorly documented. I'm quite happy with gmirror now, which the tutorial above describes. You would use gstripe instead. bye av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3+ Vinum or Gvinum
John, That did the trick. I built a new kernel with the GEOM_STRIPE option and added an entry to my fstab to mount the volume(stripe) and everything worked like a charm. In the end this turned out to be much simpler than I had anticipated. I wish this information would have been available in the online documentation (Hand Book). I wouldn't have even known about gstripe, if it were not for the people on this list. I wounder how many undocumented gems are out there. Thanks Again! --Nick On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:45:40 -0800, John Pettitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Pavlica wrote: Andrea, I have started testing with gstripe and have had good results to this point. I'm still a little unclear about how to make my stripe persistent after a reboot? My server consists of three drives. A 40GB drive that has the operating system and two 200Gb drives that I'm using for the raid 0 volume. I was also curious about a couple of other things. If you made the stripe using something like gstripe label -v -s somenumber data /dev/mumble1 /dev/mumble2 then it will be persistent subject to gstripe being loaded in the kernel - use gstripe load or build a kernel with options GEOM_STRIPE You see something like GEOM_STRIPE: Device data2 created (id=889964967). GEOM_STRIPE: Disk da0 attached to data2. GEOM_LABEL: Label for provider da1 is ufs/data. GEOM_STRIPE: Disk da2 attached to data2. GEOM_STRIPE: Device data2 activated. In the boot messages (device names will vary - I'm using two 300GB USB drives) - There is a .snap directory on the volume. Is this used by gstripe? Nope that's a ufs2 thing - I used newfs -O 2 to create a UFS2 file system on the volume. Is this treated like any other UFS2 volume that can utilize fsck, etc? Yes - although you might want to specify a block size as the defaults tend to assume lots of small files which is not always the case for very large stripe sets. - How resiliant is this volume if the system were to crash? The same as any other volume except that you have twice the chance of a hard drive failure which would be fatal to the volume. --Thanks! Nick On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:48:39 +0100, Andrea Venturoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to set up a raid 0 volume on my 5.3 server using two identical SATA drives. After reading through a number of documents I noticed that there are two related utilities to do this, Vinum and Gvinum. Which utility should be used? It's my understanding that Gvinum is the most current and should be used on 5.3+? Does the hadbook refer to Vinum, Gvinum or both? I'd reccomend you none of them; look here for detailed reasons: http://people.freebsd.org/~rse/mirror/. In brief, I've experienced severe panics with vinum after an upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3 and gvinum is marked as alpha software and poorly documented. I'm quite happy with gmirror now, which the tutorial above describes. You would use gstripe instead. bye av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3: Sharedlibs using sharedlibs (and Tcl)
Hi Peter, There is (and was in 5.3 release) a knob to build postgresql with Kerberos. WITH_HEIMDAL_KRB5=YES. Did you try that when building PostgreSQL? It would probably do the same thing as you managed by trying around with the linker command. Setting this knob to yes will add --with-krb5=/usr to the configure arguments, and this will trigger stuff in postgresql makefiles and possibly also additional code. I think this is what went wrong; the postgresql source has a configure option for building and linking with Kerberos, this option is reflected in the port, but it was not used in this case. Best regards, Palle --On tisdag, mars 15, 2005 18.06.56 +0100 Peter Much [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, my question is, which references to other sharedlibs need to be in a shared library? When installing postgresql database system and the Tcl interface tool pgaccess, I noticed that the kerberos support did not work. I installed postgresql 7.4.5 from the ports colletion as of RELEASE 5.3. This is not the newest, so I did not create a bugreport, but instead figured out the problem (and a solution) by myself (with some support from the pgaccess user community). But now I would like to *understand* what was going wrong and why I could fix it the way I did. I describe the fabric: 1. postgresql brings a library libpq.so.3 into /usr/local/lib. This library contains all the code to access the database server. If we use kerberos, then this library will call functions from the bunch of kerberos libraries (libkrb5, libasn1, etc etc) in /usr/lib. 2. postgresql also brings another, optional library libpgtcl.so.2 into /usr/local/lib. This library contains special function for accessing the database server from Tcl. This library calls the functions in libpq.so.3. 3. pgaccess is a Tcl script. It wants to load libpgtcl.so. It finds and loads libpgtcl.so, it finds and loads the necessary functions from libpq.so, and then, if we have kerberos compiled in, it recognizes one of the needed kerberos functions, and complains that it cannot find this function referenced from libpq.so. So the load of libpgtcl.so fails. As far as I see, this problem does not arise with binaries. All binary progams using libpq.so do support kerberos, and it works. Then I noticed that sharedlibs contain a section where other needed sharedlibs can be explicitely mentioned. And I noticed that libpgtcl.so contains such a mentioning of libpq.so - so this is found by Tcl. But libqp.so does not contain an explicit mentioning of the kerberos libraries. So I tried around with the linker command until I practiced such an explicit mentioning into libpq.so. And then step 3 from above did succeed! I conclude: Since this is now a matter of how sharedlibs are built on the system, this does not only concern kerberos and postgresql, but concerns any component which shall be called from Tcl. I have now two versions of my libpq.so - both contain the same code, but one will support kerberos from Tcl, and the other (the one that was built in the standard way) will not. The only difference between both shows up in the output of readelf -a as follows: The standard build that does not work: --- [...] Dynamic segment at offset 0x19774 contains 21 entries: TagType Name/Value 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libintl.so.6] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libssl.so.3] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libcrypto.so.3] 0x000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libpq.so.3] 0x000f (RPATH) Library rpath: [/usr/local/lib] [...] My modified build that does work: --- [...] Dynamic segment at offset 0x19774 contains 26 entries: TagType Name/Value 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libintl.so.6] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libssl.so.3] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libcrypto.so.3] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libkrb5.so.7] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libasn1.so.7] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libroken.so.7] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libcrypt.so.2] 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libcom_err.so.2] 0x000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libpq.so.3] 0x000f (RPATH) Library rpath: [/usr/local/lib] [...] So, my question now is: where is the conceptional error which led to the software not working at first? In Tcl? In the linker? In the system loader? In the build environment (port)? In the postgresql makefiles? In the FreeBSD sharedlib management? In kerberos? Or somewhere else? And this seems complex enough to me so I do not even know how to search if it might be a known bug that has already been fixed in the meantime... PMc ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send
Re: FreeBSD 5.3: Sharedlibs using sharedlibs (and Tcl)]
Ups, forgot the mailinglist... ---BeginMessage--- On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:28:14PM +0100, Palle Girgensohn wrote: Hi Palle, I'm glad You are in with it! ! There is (and was in 5.3 release) a knob to build postgresql with Kerberos. ! WITH_HEIMDAL_KRB5=YES. Did you try that when building PostgreSQL? It would oh yes, thats the first thing I did! This is ok and working so far: standard postgres (without Tcl) has kerberos support working. It starts getting difficult when it comes to the Tcl support: In the Makefile for ports/databases/postgresql-tcltk this exact knob is not honored. With the result that from pgtclsh we cannot connect to postgres with kerberos authentication. So I modified that Makefile a little to build my Tcl stuff with kerberos support. This worked as expected, and now my pgtclsh could connect with kerberos authentication. But pgaccess still could not. ! I think this is what went wrong; the postgresql source has a configure ! option for building and linking with Kerberos, this option is reflected in ! the port, but it was not used in this case. Sorry, no. Sometimes I'm really stupid, but I think not this time. ;-) PMc ---End Message--- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3+ Vinum or Gvinum
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:01:06PM -0700, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to set up a raid 0 volume on my 5.3 server using two identical SATA drives.After reading through a number of documents I noticed that there are two related utilities to do this, Vinum and Gvinum. Which utility should be used? It's my understanding that Gvinum is the most current and should be used on 5.3+? Does the hadbook refer to Vinum, Gvinum or both? This is not an answer to your question, but another option for you to consider: gstripe -- Regards, Doug ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3+ Vinum or Gvinum
Hi Doug, I will take a look at this. Have you used it on any production servers? How does it compare to vinum/gvinum in terms of performance reliability? --Thanks! Nick On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:04:31 -0600, Doug Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:01:06PM -0700, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to set up a raid 0 volume on my 5.3 server using two identical SATA drives.After reading through a number of documents I noticed that there are two related utilities to do this, Vinum and Gvinum. Which utility should be used? It's my understanding that Gvinum is the most current and should be used on 5.3+? Does the hadbook refer to Vinum, Gvinum or both? This is not an answer to your question, but another option for you to consider: gstripe -- Regards, Doug ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE error creating jail
it was said: I am following the directions in man jail to set up a jail on my system: D=/here/is/the/jail cd /usr/src mkdir -p $D make world DESTDIR=$D ^ Try changing this line to env DESTDIR=$D make world cd etc make distribution DESTDIR=$D mount_devfs devfs $D/dev cd $D ln -sf dev/null kernel make world DESTDIR=$D fails with the following error: make: don't know how to make /storage1/jail/usr/lib/libc.a. Stop I think this is a bug, but because a simple workaround exists, maybe it will become a training issue HTH, stheg __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 et multiprocessor
Anthony Atkielski wrote: ISP Informatique writes: Hello, I recently have just passed a server of FreeBSD 4.2 to FreeBSD 5.3. Why? The rule for production systems is to never fix what isn't broken; what was wrong with FreeBSD 4.2 that required an upgrade to 5.3? Sometimes you doesn't have the choice, for example needing freedts and p5-BDD-Sybase for a new module. BTW, the clue was a typo while building world. -- Hubert Adgié ISP Informatique www.ispinfo.fr 0890 710 147 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 et multiprocessor
ISP Informatique writes: Hello, I recently have just passed a server of FreeBSD 4.2 to FreeBSD 5.3. Why? The rule for production systems is to never fix what isn't broken; what was wrong with FreeBSD 4.2 that required an upgrade to 5.3? -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 freezes under heavy hdd load
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 23:59 -0800, pete wright wrote: A couple of things will be neccessary to help us help you. Custum kernel, post or link to your KERNEL_CONFIG, or better yet a dmesg. Also I'd suggest testing this first w/o SMP enabled (not sure if SMP is even that helpfull with hyper-threading IMO) and secondly test with AICP disabled as well. I may even go as far as running the system w/o SMP and hyper threading enabled for testing purposes. Doing this will help limit the variables at play here, and is generally considered good debugging practice. Finally, I would post any debugging or error messages your are getting in your logs as well. -pete As I said before, I do not get any log entries/messages. I'll do some more testing now. Andreas KERNEL_CONFIG: __ # # GENERIC -- Generic kernel configuration file for FreeBSD/i386 # # For more information on this file, please read the handbook section on # Kernel Configuration Files: # # http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-config.html # # The handbook is also available locally in /usr/share/doc/handbook # if you've installed the doc distribution, otherwise always see the # FreeBSD World Wide Web server (http://www.FreeBSD.org/) for the # latest information. # # An exhaustive list of options and more detailed explanations of the # device lines is also present in the ../../conf/NOTES and NOTES files. # If you are in doubt as to the purpose or necessity of a line, check first # in NOTES. # # $FreeBSD: src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v 1.413.2.6.2.2 2004/10/24 18:02:52 scottl Exp $ machinei386 #cpuI486_CPU #cpuI586_CPU cpuI686_CPU identKERNEL_CYB_P4 # To statically compile in device wiring instead of /boot/device.hints #hintsGENERIC.hints# Default places to look for devices. options SCHED_4BSD# 4BSD scheduler options INET# InterNETworking options INET6# IPv6 communications protocols options FFS# Berkeley Fast Filesystem options SOFTUPDATES# Enable FFS soft updates support options UFS_ACL# Support for access control lists options UFS_DIRHASH# Improve performance on big directories options MD_ROOT# MD is a potential root device options NFSCLIENT# Network Filesystem Client options NFSSERVER# Network Filesystem Server options NFS_ROOT# NFS usable as /, requires NFSCLIENT options MSDOSFS# MSDOS Filesystem options CD9660# ISO 9660 Filesystem options PROCFS# Process filesystem (requires PSEUDOFS) options PSEUDOFS# Pseudo-filesystem framework options GEOM_GPT# GUID Partition Tables. options COMPAT_43# Compatible with BSD 4.3 [KEEP THIS!] options COMPAT_FREEBSD4# Compatible with FreeBSD4 #options SCSI_DELAY=15000# Delay (in ms) before probing SCSI options KTRACE# ktrace(1) support options SYSVSHM# SYSV-style shared memory options SYSVMSG# SYSV-style message queues options SYSVSEM# SYSV-style semaphores options _KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING # POSIX P1003_1B real-time extensions options KBD_INSTALL_CDEV# install a CDEV entry in /dev options AHC_REG_PRETTY_PRINT# Print register bitfields in debug # output. Adds ~128k to driver. options AHD_REG_PRETTY_PRINT# Print register bitfields in debug # output. Adds ~215k to driver. options ADAPTIVE_GIANT# Giant mutex is adaptive. deviceapic# I/O APIC #cyb: kernel smp support (device apic + options SMP) optionsSMP # Bus support. Do not remove isa, even if you have no isa slots deviceisa #deviceeisa devicepci # Floppy drives devicefdc # ATA and ATAPI devices deviceata deviceatadisk# ATA disk drives #deviceataraid# ATA RAID drives deviceatapicd# ATAPI CDROM drives #deviceatapifd# ATAPI floppy drives #deviceatapist# ATAPI tape drives options ATA_STATIC_ID# Static device numbering deviceatapicam# allows ATAPI devices to be accessed through SCSI subsystem # SCSI Controllers #deviceahb# EISA AHA1742 family #deviceahc# AHA2940 and onboard AIC7xxx devices #deviceahd# AHA39320/29320 and onboard AIC79xx devices #deviceamd# AMD 53C974 (Tekram DC-390(T)) #deviceisp# Qlogic family #devicempt# LSI-Logic MPT-Fusion ##devicencr# NCR/Symbios Logic #devicesym# NCR/Symbios Logic (newer chipsets + those of `ncr') #devicetrm# Tekram DC395U/UW/F DC315U adapters #deviceadv# Advansys SCSI adapters #deviceadw# Advansys wide SCSI adapters #deviceaha# Adaptec 154x SCSI adapters #deviceaic# Adaptec 15[012]x SCSI adapters, AIC-6[23]60. #devicebt# Buslogic/Mylex MultiMaster SCSI adapters #devicencv# NCR 53C500 #devicensp# Workbit Ninja SCSI-3 #devicestg# TMC 18C30/18C50 # SCSI peripherals devicescbus# SCSI bus (required for SCSI) #devicech# SCSI media changers deviceda# Direct Access (disks) #devicesa# Sequential Access (tape etc) devicecd# CD devicepass# Passthrough device (direct SCSI access) #deviceses# SCSI Environmental Services (and SAF-TE) # RAID controllers interfaced to the SCSI subsystem #deviceamr# AMI MegaRAID #deviceasr# DPT SmartRAID V, VI and Adaptec SCSI RAID #deviceciss# Compaq Smart RAID 5* #devicedpt# DPT Smartcache III, IV - See NOTES for options #devicehptmv# Highpoint
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 freezes under heavy hdd load
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:28:32 +0100, cyb cyb.@gmx.net wrote: Hello, from time to time my FreeBSD freezes under heavy hdd load and only a hard reset will bring it back to life with fsck complaining about 'Softupdate Inconsistencies'. I had this behaviour on 5.3-RELEASE, 5.3-RELEASE-p5 and now i have it on 5.4-PRERELEASE. I am using a custom kernel with SMP enabled on a P4 3.2GHz for hyperthreading. One hdd is a SATA drive and it acts fine. The other hdd however is an ATA133 drive and i suspect it to be the problem, since freezes only occur when it is busy (eg. copying much data from a DVD/HDD to it or compiling a port). Whenever the system freezes there is no warning or log entry at all. I used 'smartmontools' to check the drive, but there was not found anything and the hdd appeared to be fully operational. I have 1GB (2x512MB PC3200) in the box and memtest86 was ok too. Could the freezes come from a faulty IDE hdd (which would mean that I better get rid of it), or are there other possiblities. A couple of things will be neccessary to help us help you. Custum kernel, post or link to your KERNEL_CONFIG, or better yet a dmesg. Also I'd suggest testing this first w/o SMP enabled (not sure if SMP is even that helpfull with hyper-threading IMO) and secondly test with AICP disabled as well. I may even go as far as running the system w/o SMP and hyper threading enabled for testing purposes. Doing this will help limit the variables at play here, and is generally considered good debugging practice. Finally, I would post any debugging or error messages your are getting in your logs as well. -pete -- ~~o0OO0o~~ Pete Wright www.nycbug.org NYC's *BSD User Group ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 - Raid
I have read the manual and searched the web for a simple way to do the above.
The manual seems to cover complex solutions and may be somewhat behind the
times.
Personally I would go for geom_mirror. See gmirror(8) ('man gmirror') for usage
instructions including examples. Creating a mirror takes only one command.
--
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 - Raid
On February 27, 2005 08:59 am, Robert Slade wrote: Hi, Sorry if this is dumb question. I have a new install of FreeBSD on a single IDE drive. I have backed this up so I am not too concerned about drive failure. I have now added 2, 250 Gbyte drives (ad3 and ad4) to hold data. I would like to mirror them using sofware raid and mount them as /home to hold the users data which is critical. I have read the manual and searched the web for a simple way to do the above. The manual seems to cover complex solutions and may be somewhat behind the times. The handbook is pretty up to date (I just looked at it). I would suggest you ignore the section that describes 'ccd'. It is easier to set up than vinum but I have found the current implementation of ccd to be unreliable. If you are using FreeBSD 5.x (hopefully 5.3), use gvinum instead of vinum. It works the same way (commands and options) as vinum but (from what I understand) it has some improvements. I guess what I am looking for is a howto couched in such a way that even a windows user can understand :-). I assume you have physically installed your two disks (ad3, ad4). If you have not done so yet, use fdisk(8) to create a single slice (what Windows calls a partition). This can also be done through sysinstall Also, if you have not done so yet, use bsdlabel(8) to create a FreeBSD partition (no Windows equivalent). Be sure to set the 'fstype' to 'vinum'. At this stage I will assume that you have set up your two disks so that you have ad3s1a and ad4s1a as the slices you wish to use for vinum. I think you can do this with sysinstall as well. NOTE: you do not need to use newfs to create the filesystem, that would happen after you have setup your RAID volumes. Create a file, we will call it gvinum.conf and put the following into it: # Define the FreeBSD Partitions to be used for Vinum drive a device /dev/ad3s1a drive b device /dev/ad4s1a # # Define each volume/plex/subdisk volume home # home volume plex org concat# concatinated plex (1st half of mirror) sd length 8192m drive a # 1st subdisk of concatinated plex plex org concat# concatinated plex (2nd half of mirror) sd length 8192m drive b # 1st subdisk of 2nd concatinated plex Now, use the vinum(8) 'create' command to set things up using the configuration file. You should now have a /dev/gvinum/home device. You can newfs it, mount it, and add it to your /etc/fstab. newfs /dev/gvinum/home mount /dev/gvinum/home /home Any suggestions please. Do read and try to understand chapter 17 of the FreeBSD handbook if you want to get into software RAID. Rob, you really need to understand how software RAID works if you want to take advantage of it. When you have a disk failure, you need to know what to do to recover your data. In order to do that you really need to understand how the software RAID works. You may want to consider setting up a seconds FreeBSD partition on each of your two new disks so that you can fiddle with RAID and figure out how to recover from a disk failure. -- Ean Kingston E-Mail: ean AT hedron DOT org URL: http://www.hedron.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 - Raid
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 01:59:35PM +, Robert Slade wrote: I have a new install of FreeBSD on a single IDE drive. I have backed this up so I am not too concerned about drive failure. I have now added 2, 250 Gbyte drives (ad3 and ad4) to hold data. I would like to mirror them using sofware raid and mount them as /home to hold the users data which is critical. I have read the manual and searched the web for a simple way to do the above. The manual seems to cover complex solutions and may be somewhat behind the times. I guess what I am looking for is a howto couched in such a way that even a windows user can understand :-). Any suggestions please. Someone else already recommended GEOM which I also recommend. I just setup gmirror for the fist time and I am very impressed with it. I did drive failure simulations for both ad0 and ad2 and was able to reconstruct the mirror each time. This howto is very good: http://people.freebsd.org/~rse/mirror/ Andy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 - Raid
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 15:26, Ean Kingston wrote: On February 27, 2005 08:59 am, Robert Slade wrote: Hi, Sorry if this is dumb question. I have a new install of FreeBSD on a single IDE drive. I have backed this up so I am not too concerned about drive failure. I have now added 2, 250 Gbyte drives (ad3 and ad4) to hold data. I would like to mirror them using sofware raid and mount them as /home to hold the users data which is critical. I have read the manual and searched the web for a simple way to do the above. The manual seems to cover complex solutions and may be somewhat behind the times. The handbook is pretty up to date (I just looked at it). What confused me is that it did not seem to cover GEOM which came up during my searches. I would suggest you ignore the section that describes 'ccd'. It is easier to set up than vinum but I have found the current implementation of ccd to be unreliable. If you are using FreeBSD 5.x (hopefully 5.3), use gvinum instead of vinum. It works the same way (commands and options) as vinum but (from what I understand) it has some improvements. I am using 5.3. I guess what I am looking for is a howto couched in such a way that even a windows user can understand :-). I assume you have physically installed your two disks (ad3, ad4). If you have not done so yet, use fdisk(8) to create a single slice (what Windows calls a partition). This can also be done through sysinstall Also, if you have not done so yet, use bsdlabel(8) to create a FreeBSD partition (no Windows equivalent). Be sure to set the 'fstype' to 'vinum'. At this stage I will assume that you have set up your two disks so that you have ad3s1a and ad4s1a as the slices you wish to use for vinum. I think you can do this with sysinstall as well. NOTE: you do not need to use newfs to create the filesystem, that would happen after you have setup your RAID volumes. Create a file, we will call it gvinum.conf and put the following into it: # Define the FreeBSD Partitions to be used for Vinum drive a device /dev/ad3s1a drive b device /dev/ad4s1a # # Define each volume/plex/subdisk volume home # home volume plex org concat # concatinated plex (1st half of mirror) sd length 8192m drive a # 1st subdisk of concatinated plex plex org concat # concatinated plex (2nd half of mirror) sd length 8192m drive b # 1st subdisk of 2nd concatinated plex Now, use the vinum(8) 'create' command to set things up using the configuration file. You should now have a /dev/gvinum/home device. You can newfs it, mount it, and add it to your /etc/fstab. newfs /dev/gvinum/home mount /dev/gvinum/home /home Any suggestions please. Do read and try to understand chapter 17 of the FreeBSD handbook if you want to get into software RAID. Rob, you really need to understand how software RAID works if you want to take advantage of it. When you have a disk failure, you need to know what to do to recover your data. In order to do that you really need to understand how the software RAID works. You may want to consider setting up a seconds FreeBSD partition on each of your two new disks so that you can fiddle with RAID and figure out how to recover from a disk failure. Ean, Many many thanks for your explanation. I do take your points regarding understanding how the raid works before providing it for users. I have a little time before the box has to go live and I will use it check the system. Rob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 dev nodes
In the last episode (Feb 25), Tim Traver said: I have just started using the 5.X branch of FreeBSD, and needed to mount a hot swap drive in a second drive bay. In the past, I've simply run MAKEDEV, and it made the device files for me, and then I was able to mount the drive and I was on my way... It appears that this has been replaced by devfs, and I must say that this is an extremely difficult process to understand (must mean its very powerful ;). All I want to do is create the da1 devices for my second scsi disk, and I honestly have no idea how to do that with devfs... You don't have to do anything; just pop your disk in, run camcontrol rescan all, and use the /dev/da1 that magically appears. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 very slow data-transfer
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:27:16AM +0100, Jack Raats wrote: Yesterday I've install FreeBSD 5.3 on a machine. After compiling the kernel with device my, I can connect through the network with that machine. Everything works fine, but when I try to update the source tree or ftp-ing to a local machine, the data transfer starts at 10 Kbytes/sec and drops very quickly to nearly 0. Can anyone give me a clue or help me? This almost always means a mismatch of duplex settings on the NIC. Kris pgpEdtBmlucNz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 04:22:02PM -0800, Matt Olander wrote: hey gang, We've got a customer that is considering a network expansion while moving from Linux to FreeBSD. They are big users of MySQL and have been running it on Linux. Most of the information that I've found is a bit old, but I guess my question is if LinuxThreads should still be used or if MySQL works well under FreeBSD using native threads. The customer has looked at Jeremy's blog article on this issue, but this is pretty old: http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000697.html Also, does anybody have any FreeBSD 5.3/MySQL benchmarks? I searched the mailing lists but didn't turn up anything. Hot off the press: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/27/1243207from=rss Ceri -- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-- Einstein (attrib.) pgpXT4KpErWtD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
Any so-called benchmark comparing Linux to anything else (especially windoze) has been polluted by the tradition in the linux/windoze world of running their disks in the completely unsafe asynchronous mode so popular with the ATA disk drive manufacturers. This method means that you never actually know whether or not the drive ever writes your data on the disk. It could just sit in the cache waiting for a power failure so that you lose everything. This async mode means that the benchmarks look fast but are completely unsafe. so by this logic, if i re-mount my partitions async i can get the same performance? this isn't meant as a rub, i would seriously consider doing this if it were the case. i'd like to know any and all ways i can make mysql faster. we have fleats of mysql servers with redundant data. the loss of a server due to corruption is not problematic ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
On February 10, 2005 04:53 pm, Jeff Behl wrote: Any so-called benchmark comparing Linux to anything else (especially windoze) has been polluted by the tradition in the linux/windoze world of running their disks in the completely unsafe asynchronous mode so popular with the ATA disk drive manufacturers. This method means that you never actually know whether or not the drive ever writes your data on the disk. It could just sit in the cache waiting for a power failure so that you lose everything. This async mode means that the benchmarks look fast but are completely unsafe. so by this logic, if i re-mount my partitions async i can get the same performance? this isn't meant as a rub, i would seriously consider doing this if it were the case. i'd like to know any and all ways i can make mysql faster. we have fleats of mysql servers with redundant data. the loss of a server due to corruption is not problematic You will get significant speed increase out of your filesystem(s) if you mount them async. BUT if you don't unmount them properly you will have corrupted filesystems. I do this with /tmp. -- Ean Kingston E-Mail: ean AT hedron DOT org URL: http://www.hedron.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Matt Olander wrote: Also, does anybody have any FreeBSD 5.3/MySQL benchmarks? I searched the mailing lists but didn't turn up anything. This was posted to some NetBSD lists today: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/12/27/1243207from=rss This Comparing MySQL performance article includes FreeBSD 5.3 (linuxthreads and KSE), FreeBSD 4.11 (linuxthreads), OpenBSD 3.6, NetBSD 2.0, Solaris 10, Linux 2.4 and 2.6 (Gentoo) Jeremy C. Reed BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 07:58:56PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote: Also, does anybody have any FreeBSD 5.3/MySQL benchmarks? I searched the mailing lists but didn't turn up anything. There was an article posted to Newsforge today about benchmarking MySQL on different operating systems. oh! thanks...but according to this article, Linux outperformed FreeBSD in every metric shown :-( is that accurate? The customer is looking for some kind of validation that he'll be safe running his database on FreeBSD. I don't usually look at benchmarks when wondering if my databases are 'safe'. Perhaps you misunderstood or I fired that email off to quickly. In addition to benchmarks, he's also looking for anything to show that he won't be a pioneer in using large MySQL databases on FreeBSD. In other words, I'd love to point this customer to FreeBSD if it makes sense for them. any help appreciated! thanks! -matt -- Matt Olander (408)943-4100 Phone (408)943-4101 Fax www.offmyserver.com -- Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't -Mark Twain ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 16:44 -0800, Matt Olander wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 07:58:56PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote: Also, does anybody have any FreeBSD 5.3/MySQL benchmarks? I searched the mailing lists but didn't turn up anything. There was an article posted to Newsforge today about benchmarking MySQL on different operating systems. oh! thanks...but according to this article, Linux outperformed FreeBSD in every metric shown :-( is that accurate? LinuxThreads is the WORST implementation of threading that anyone can imagine. Do not ever use Linux or the horrid LinuxThreads for anything that you want to save. Any so-called benchmark comparing Linux to anything else (especially windoze) has been polluted by the tradition in the linux/windoze world of running their disks in the completely unsafe asynchronous mode so popular with the ATA disk drive manufacturers. This method means that you never actually know whether or not the drive ever writes your data on the disk. It could just sit in the cache waiting for a power failure so that you lose everything. This async mode means that the benchmarks look fast but are completely unsafe. The customer is looking for some kind of validation that he'll be safe running his database on FreeBSD. I don't usually look at benchmarks when wondering if my databases are 'safe'. Perhaps you misunderstood or I fired that email off to quickly. In addition to benchmarks, he's also looking for anything to show that he won't be a pioneer in using large MySQL databases on FreeBSD. In other words, I'd love to point this customer to FreeBSD if it makes sense for them. any help appreciated! Many companies have used FreeBSD and MySQL for years and years. There is no reason to not jump to FreeBSD and start using MySQL. At my last job, we ran very large MySQL databases on FreeBSD. For speed we used 15,000 RPM SCSI-3 disk drives. This gives you all the speed you need with the guaranteed safety of FreeBSD. Of course, SCSI-3 15,000 RPM drives are more expensive than those wimpy ATA drives. Go to FreeBSD. Leave that unsafe Linux crap in the dust. /Joe ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD 5.3 MySQL Performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 16:44 -0800, Matt Olander wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 07:58:56PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote: Also, does anybody have any FreeBSD 5.3/MySQL benchmarks? I searched the mailing lists but didn't turn up anything. There was an article posted to Newsforge today about benchmarking MySQL on different operating systems. oh! thanks...but according to this article, Linux outperformed FreeBSD in every metric shown :-( No, not true, reread the article. Performance was on par for uniprocessor versions of Linux and FreeBSD for most tests. Also, the author said the following about the testing: highest performer in one category for a limited set of tests does not a best operating system make. Please keep in mind that editors of publications love benchmarking articles, because they always get someone's tit in a wringer, and attract a lot of attention. And attention sells newspapers. But you shouldn't take these things too seriously. The article points out a few things and the accompanying reader responses point out a few more things that are educational if you are choosing to run a database on a UNIX system, but by no means should the article be used as the sole basis for choosing one OS over another. People that do benchmarking and publish the results are generally hoping to help point out problems. Sometimes this is because they have an axe to grind and want to see their favorite OS or program or whatever get some attention, sometimes just because it's nice to see some of your work in print. But regardless of why they do it, the results are valuable, because if problems that benchmarking reveals wern't pointed out, they wouldn't ever get fixed. My take on the article is the most surprising thing in it was that Sun's own support staff couldn't answer the authors query about why Solaris was so slow, and the author finally figured it out by himself (The filesystem wasn't mounted with the forcedirect option) and set the needed option, whereupon performance dramatically improved. We always hear from commercial OS vendors how their products are so much better because they are supported - well it seems to me that if Sun's support was this bad for their own OS, well that throws the entire argument out the window, don't it? is that accurate? LinuxThreads is the WORST implementation of threading that anyone can imagine. Do not ever use Linux or the horrid LinuxThreads for anything that you want to save. Any so-called benchmark comparing Linux to anything else (especially windoze) has been polluted by the tradition in the linux/windoze world of running their disks in the completely unsafe asynchronous mode so popular with the ATA disk drive manufacturers. The author of the article avoided this by using a test method that in his words: I performed one test run to prime the system, almost all of the data was cached by MySQL, so there was little or no disk access. Many companies have used FreeBSD and MySQL for years and years. There is no reason to not jump to FreeBSD and start using MySQL. Exactly, we use MySQL and FreeBSD quite a lot and have no problem with it. At my last job, we ran very large MySQL databases on FreeBSD. For speed we used 15,000 RPM SCSI-3 disk drives. This gives you all the speed you need with the guaranteed safety of FreeBSD. Of course, SCSI-3 15,000 RPM drives are more expensive than those wimpy ATA drives. You see, this here points out the crux of the problem. Boiled down the article essentially said that Linux performed better because it's SMP implementation allowed mysql to take advantage of both CPU's while FreeBSD's SMP implementation didn't. But you see the problem with this is that in a real life situation, it is not often that you have such a small database and such a large amount of system memory that the OS can load the entire database into a disk cache in ram. As you can no doubt understand, if the database is on disk all the additional CPU's in the world won't make the database run any faster once the disk channel gets saturated, which is easy to do. And even if you can load the entire database in ram, if you make a lot of writes to it, the system has to push these to the disk channel eventually, unless of course you like for your entire database to vanish if there's a power interruption or system crash of some kind. So for a situation of a steady stream of writes, you end up I/O bound again. SMP on a database is no help if the system is I/O bound. And if your database is going to I/O bind, because of how it's used and setup and how big it is, then this benchmark article is completely useless to you. And even if your database isn't going to I/O bind then read the following comment one of the readers posted regarding OpenBSD and FreeBSD: They both use userland only threading, and therefore mysql is only ever running on a single CPU, no matter how many are in the system ...Different
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: I was wondering if any progress has been made in determining the cause of the poor disk I/O performance illustrated by the testing in this thread? Now that 5.3 is labeled as the production stable version, and 4.x is labeled as legacy, improving the performance of the 5.4+ distributions is clearly important. I know that everyone is working hard to do this, and wanted to help by testing(retest, etc) the disk I/O performance on 5.4 devel/final and post the results as soon as possible. I would also like others to join me in this testing effort so that we have as much feedback as possible. My hope is that we will start bridging the large disk I/O performance gap demonstrated in the 4.11 5.3 testing. Per my out of band e-mail a bit earlier, I was wondering if I could get you to produce a concise write-up of the various benchmarks you're running, and the specific configurations and results so far. I'd like to reproduce the scenario in a test cluster, but want to make sure I'm looking at the same issue syou're looking at :-). - When would be best time to start this testing? - What is the preferred method for keeping in sync with the current devel branch? I'm assuming cvs-up is the best method. I've found the best way to track branches is to mirror the CVS repository using cvsup and no tag, then to locally check out specific work trees. This allows you to easily slide files across revisions, helping to track down specific changes that may have been the source of regression or improvement. It also makes it easier to answer the question What are you running :-). Regarding when to start running -- now is as good a time as any. The VFS SMP work seems to have settled some, so it's now a variable that can be frobbed fairly safely as part of testing. Robert N M Watson Thanks! --Nick Pavlica On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:52:38 + (GMT), Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote: I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a per-transaction overhead. Apart from postmark and iozone (directly to disk and over nfs), are there any particular tests you would like to see done ? Just to get started, using dd to read and write at various block sizes is probably a decent start. Take a few samples, make sure there's a decent sample size, etc, and don't count the first couple of runs. Robert N M Watson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3, Openfiles Limit in login.conf not respected
Matt Rechkemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 05:01:53PM -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote: What configuration file should I execute this on? login.conf? Yes. Go back to /etc/login.conf and read the first few lines. Lowell, I can't thank you enough :-). I should have RTFP in the first place. I submitted a small change to the login.conf manual page to note cap_mkdb more prominently... Now another question related to the open files proposition. Will FreeBSD every provide unlimited file descriptors as per the default class, or will it simply set the maximum that it's capable of? I'm not sure what the question means, to be honest. Certainly FreeBSD will never provide more file descriptors than it is capable of providing. And there is a system-wide limit -- all of the open files in the system have to be described in a kernel table which cannot be resized after boot time. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and sshd
From: Irina Hello at FreeBSD list. I have installed FreeBSD 5.3, have not upgraded to STABLE yet. During the installation I created a user account that is in the wheel group. After the installation, logged in as that user at console with no problems. But can not login using putty from my computer via ssh. Then enabled telnet in inetd.conf and could telnet just fine. I also noticed that I CAN ssh as that user from one of other servers (FreeBSD 5.1). Please help, I am not sure where to look. Thank you for your help in advance. Irina What version of PuTTY are you using? Pre (Version 0.56) has known problems with ssh2, try updating your version of PuTTY. Best, Jon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and sshd
sshd is disabled by default in FreeBSD 5.3, enable it by hand: # /etc/rc.d/sshd start Then, If you want it to be started at boot time, add the following line to /etc/rc.conf : sshd_enable=YES HTH On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Irina wrote: Hello at FreeBSD list. I have installed FreeBSD 5.3, have not upgraded to STABLE yet. During the installation I created a user account that is in the wheel group. After the installation, logged in as that user at console with no problems. But can not login using putty from my computer via ssh. Then enabled telnet in inetd.conf and could telnet just fine. I also noticed that I CAN ssh as that user from one of other servers (FreeBSD 5.1). Please help, I am not sure where to look. Thank you for your help in advance. Irina ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and sshd
Hello Richard, I have enabled ssh on a command line, then through inetd. Nothing worked. But... There was another answer from Jon to me right before yours. He suggested to upgrade putty. I had 0.51. Upgrading to 0.56 worked. Who would think about putty?... I did not :-) Thank you. Irina = - Original Message - From: Richard Cotrina [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:13 PM Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and sshd sshd is disabled by default in FreeBSD 5.3, enable it by hand: # /etc/rc.d/sshd start Then, If you want it to be started at boot time, add the following line to /etc/rc.conf : sshd_enable=YES HTH On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Irina wrote: Hello at FreeBSD list. I have installed FreeBSD 5.3, have not upgraded to STABLE yet. During the installation I created a user account that is in the wheel group. After the installation, logged in as that user at console with no problems. But can not login using putty from my computer via ssh. Then enabled telnet in inetd.conf and could telnet just fine. I also noticed that I CAN ssh as that user from one of other servers (FreeBSD 5.1). Please help, I am not sure where to look. Thank you for your help in advance. Irina ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3, Openfiles Limit in login.conf not respected
Matt Rechkemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi folks, I recently setup FreeBSD 5.3R on my P4 2.4 GHz system and have a slight problem with it not respecting the limits set in /etc/login.conf. The entry I've made in /etc/login.conf is below: bopm:\ :openfiles=8192:\ :coredumpsize=unlimited:\ :tc=default: Yet when a user with that login class logins in, they're offered a openfiles limit of 14781 instead of 8192. In my kernel I've set maxusers so FreeBSD doesn't attempt to auto-tune this setting. I searched the handbook and the FAQ, but didn't come up with anything useful. Any help on this, is greatly appreciated! It works for me; maybe you forgot to run cap_mkdb(1)? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3, Openfiles Limit in login.conf not respected
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 02:17:37PM -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote: It works for me; maybe you forgot to run cap_mkdb(1)? What configuration file should I execute this on? login.conf? Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3, Openfiles Limit in login.conf not respected
Matt Rechkemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 02:17:37PM -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote: It works for me; maybe you forgot to run cap_mkdb(1)? What configuration file should I execute this on? login.conf? Yes. Go back to /etc/login.conf and read the first few lines. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
All, I was wondering if any progress has been made in determining the cause of the poor disk I/O performance illustrated by the testing in this thread? Now that 5.3 is labeled as the production stable version, and 4.x is labeled as legacy, improving the performance of the 5.4+ distributions is clearly important. I know that everyone is working hard to do this, and wanted to help by testing(retest, etc) the disk I/O performance on 5.4 devel/final and post the results as soon as possible. I would also like others to join me in this testing effort so that we have as much feedback as possible. My hope is that we will start bridging the large disk I/O performance gap demonstrated in the 4.11 5.3 testing. - When would be best time to start this testing? - What is the preferred method for keeping in sync with the current devel branch? I'm assuming cvs-up is the best method. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:52:38 + (GMT), Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote: I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a per-transaction overhead. Apart from postmark and iozone (directly to disk and over nfs), are there any particular tests you would like to see done ? Just to get started, using dd to read and write at various block sizes is probably a decent start. Take a few samples, make sure there's a decent sample size, etc, and don't count the first couple of runs. Robert N M Watson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3, Openfiles Limit in login.conf not respected
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 05:01:53PM -0500, Lowell Gilbert wrote: What configuration file should I execute this on? login.conf? Yes. Go back to /etc/login.conf and read the first few lines. Lowell, I can't thank you enough :-). I should have RTFP in the first place. Now another question related to the open files proposition. Will FreeBSD every provide unlimited file descriptors as per the default class, or will it simply set the maximum that it's capable of? Thanks again! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote: I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a per-transaction overhead. Apart from postmark and iozone (directly to disk and over nfs), are there any particular tests you would like to see done ? Just to get started, using dd to read and write at various block sizes is probably a decent start. Take a few samples, make sure there's a decent sample size, etc, and don't count the first couple of runs. Robert N M Watson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
The move to an MPSAFE VFS will help with that a lot, I should think. Do you know if this will find it's way to 5.x in the near future? Also, while on face value this may seem odd, could you try the following additional variables: - Layer the test UFS partition directly over ad0 instead of ad0s1a - UFS1 vs UFS2 I just tested with UFS1 and had almost the exact same results. Finally, in as much as is possible, make sure that the layout of the disks is approximately the same -- as countless benchmarking papers show, there are substantial differences (10%+) in I/O throughput depending on where on the disk surface operations occur. That's one of the reasons to try UFS1 for the test partition, although not the only one. My tests use the exact same disk layout, and hardware. However, I have had consistent results on all 4 boxes that I have tested on. At this point I'm making the assumption that the poor disk I/O performance on 5.3 isn't a file system issue, but is tied to a larger issue with the Kernel (I know never make assumptions ... :)). In all my testing, I have noticed that 5.3 doesn't appear to release cpu resources even if there isn't any other demand for resources. I would compare it to driveling a car with a governor on it. When I tested with 4.11, it allocated considerably more resources. I do hope that the 5.x issues are resolved soon so that I can deploy may production servers on it rather than starting on 4 and them making the big switch. I will probably test 6 for the fun of it. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: The move to an MPSAFE VFS will help with that a lot, I should think. Do you know if this will find it's way to 5.x in the near future? Hopefully not too quickly, it's fairly experimental. I know there's interest in getting it into 5.x however. Perhaps once it's settled for a few months and we've confirmed that in the off state it's quite un-harmful, it can be merged. Also, while on face value this may seem odd, could you try the following additional variables: - Layer the test UFS partition directly over ad0 instead of ad0s1a - UFS1 vs UFS2 I just tested with UFS1 and had almost the exact same results. OK, thanks. Finally, in as much as is possible, make sure that the layout of the disks is approximately the same -- as countless benchmarking papers show, there are substantial differences (10%+) in I/O throughput depending on where on the disk surface operations occur. That's one of the reasons to try UFS1 for the test partition, although not the only one. My tests use the exact same disk layout, and hardware. However, I have had consistent results on all 4 boxes that I have tested on. At this point I'm making the assumption that the poor disk I/O performance on 5.3 isn't a file system issue, but is tied to a larger issue with the Kernel (I know never make assumptions ... :)). In all my testing, I have noticed that 5.3 doesn't appear to release cpu resources even if there isn't any other demand for resources. I would compare it to driveling a car with a governor on it. When I tested with 4.11, it allocated considerably more resources. I do hope that the 5.x issues are resolved soon so that I can deploy may production servers on it rather than starting on 4 and them making the big switch. I will probably test 6 for the fun of it. Forgive me if this was in previous e-mails and I missed it, but -- how does I/O directly on /dev/[diskdevice] differ as compared to the file system I/O? In particular, it's interesting to compare both large block I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a per-transaction overhead. Finally -- I figure you've done this already, but it's worth asking -- can you confirm that your hardware is negotiating the same basic parameters under 5.x and 4.x? In particular, the ATA code has changed substantially, so if using ATA hardware you want to confirm that the same DMA mode is negotiated. Robert N M Watson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
At 08:14 PM 27/01/2005, Robert Watson wrote: My tests use the exact same disk layout, and hardware. However, I have had consistent results on all 4 boxes that I have tested on. I am redoing mine so that I boot from a different drive and just test on one large RAID5 partition so that the layout is as consistent as possible I/O (reads, writes at fairly large multiples of the sector size -- 512k is a good number) and small I/O size (512 bytes is good). This will help identify the source along two dimmensions: are we looking at a basic storage I/O problem that's present even without the file system, or can we conclude that some of the additional extra cost is in the file system code or the hand off to it. Also, with the large and small I/O size, we can perhaps draw some conclusions about to what extent the source is a per-transaction overhead. Apart from postmark and iozone (directly to disk and over nfs), are there any particular tests you would like to see done ? Also, anyone know of a decent benchmark to run on windows ? I want to test samba's performance on the 2 platforms as seen from a couple of Windows clients. ---Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:50:02 -0700 (MST), Terry R. Friedrichsen wrote: Is anybody besides *me* having file system corruption problems with FreeBSD 5.3? I've looked around on several of the mailing lists and found no men- tion of this. Not the same problem as you, but I've been getting frequent ffs panics with 5.3 that I never got with 5.2.1. I didn't know the actual error at first because I'm in X most of the time and they wouldn't appear there (system would simply lock up). It wasn't until I started trying to update some ports from console only that I caught the error. It only seems to happen during periods of intense disk activity (writes?). I have the actual error written down at home. It always causes an fsck mess upon starting up again, which makes me nervous. There's certain tasks I simply cannot do anymore because they're write-intensive and I know they'll trigger the panic. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
All, With the recent release of 4.11 I thought that I would give it a spin and com pair my results with my previous testing. I was blown away by the performance difference between 4.11 and 5.3. Iostat showed a difference of over 30Mb/s difference between the two. In fact, it kept up or out performed fedora Core 3 with XFS in my testing. This seems to indicate that the 5.x branch may still needs allot of performance work. One of the interesting observations was that 4.11 utilized much more of the processor than 5.3. I hope that the changes in 5.4 will help close this gap considerably. Is there any specific components of the 5.3 that have been identified to cause this performance difference? Your feedback/thoughts on this are appreciated! --Nick On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:59:55 -0700, Nick Pavlica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD 5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A Religious/Engineering War, please don't try to turn it into one. That said, lets move on to something more productive. I installed both operating systems using as many default options as possible and updated them with all of the latest patches. I was logged in via SSH from my workstation while running the tests. I didn't have X, running on any of the installations because it wasn't need. CPU and RAM utilization wasn't an issue during any of the tests, but the disk I/O performance was dramatically different. Please keep in mind that I ran these tests over and over to see if I had consistent results. I even did the same tests on other pieces of equipment not listed in my notes that yielded the same results time and time again. Some have confirmed that they have had similar results in there testing using other testing tools and methods. This makes me wounder why the gap is so large, and how it can be improved? I think that it would be beneficial to have others in this group do similar testing and post there results. This may help those that are working on the OS itself to find trouble areas, and ways to improve them. It may also help clarify many of the response questions because you will be able to completely control the testing environment. I look forward to seeing the testing results, and any good feedback that helps identify specific tuning options, or bugs that need to be addressed. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica --Laramie, WY ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
I have been testing 5.3 (Standard Install/Default settings) and haven't had any file system corruption. However, the I/O performance results from my testing currently show that there is a major difference between 4.11 and 5.3 (4.11 is much faster!). I have a suspicion that these issues may be related to some core issues with 5.3 that need to cleared up. On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:50:02 -0700 (MST), Terry R. Friedrichsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anybody besides *me* having file system corruption problems with FreeBSD 5.3? I've looked around on several of the mailing lists and found no men- tion of this. I have two different platforms on which I'm trying to run FreeBSD 5.3. One is an x86 SMP system (dual AMD Athlon 1900+) and the other is an Alpha DS-10. On the SMP system, doing anything I/O intensive (like a kernel build) quickly corrupts the file system - I start to encounter problems like being unable to remove entire directory trees because the system thinks that empty directories are not *really* empty and therefore cannot be deleted. Other problems occur, too. On the Alpha system, I'm trying to get Xorg to work, with no success. What normally happens is that the system locks up *totally* either when trying to configure X or when running the X server after configure generates a config file (I'm trying multiple versions of Xorg). The lockup means that I have to power-cycle the system to reboot. When I do this, the filesystem is *always* horribly damaged. I finally gave up when I couldn't even get into sh in single-abuser mode because /libexec/ld.so.1 was no longer there ... What I'm going to try next is pulling one CPU out of the SMP system to see if that helps. On the Alpha, I'm just going to give up on Xorg for a while. I'd hate to have to drop back to 4.10 or 4.11 ... If anyone has any suggestions, or even just sympathetic words, I'd be happy to hear them! Thanks. Terry R. Friedrichsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
Thanks for responding to my inquiry. If it fits into your testing program, try running something that works the file system and simply turn off the system power in the middle of it. Twice, now, doing this on my Alpha has rendered the system unrecoverable at boot time, necessitating a reinstall. Terry [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
That same thought ran thought my mind when I was testing. I started a process that does heavy writing and literally pulled the plug during the middle of the operation. I plugged it back in and the box came back up without a hitch. I did all my testing on x86 boxes using SCSI and IDE drives. I currently don't have access to any Alpha boxes to test on them. I'm not a big fan of Alpha, but the DS10 has always been a great workhorse in my experience. Is the firmware etc up to date on that box? --Nick On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:42:47 -0700 (MST), Terry R. Friedrichsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for responding to my inquiry. If it fits into your testing program, try running something that works the file system and simply turn off the system power in the middle of it. Twice, now, doing this on my Alpha has rendered the system unrecoverable at boot time, necessitating a reinstall. Terry [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:50:02AM -0700, Terry R. Friedrichsen wrote: Is anybody besides *me* having file system corruption problems with FreeBSD 5.3? I've looked around on several of the mailing lists and found no men- tion of this. I have two different platforms on which I'm trying to run FreeBSD 5.3. One is an x86 SMP system (dual AMD Athlon 1900+) and the other is an Alpha DS-10. On the SMP system, doing anything I/O intensive (like a kernel build) quickly corrupts the file system - I start to encounter problems like being unable to remove entire directory trees because the system thinks that empty directories are not *really* empty and therefore cannot be deleted. Other problems occur, too. Drop to single-user mode and run fsck -fy. Sometimes fsck will fail to detect disk corruption at boot time and it will cause problems later on. On the Alpha system, I'm trying to get Xorg to work, with no success. It's quite possible no-one else has tested this. alpha is no longer a tier-1 architecture because of lack of developer interest. Kris pgpW0vf0zfoSi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:42:47PM -0700, Terry R. Friedrichsen wrote: Thanks for responding to my inquiry. If it fits into your testing program, try running something that works the file system and simply turn off the system power in the middle of it. This is expected if you don't turn off write caching of the hard disks. It breaks the softupdates consistency model because data written to the disk may not actually be written to the disk, so it's not there following an unexpected power cycle. Unfortunately write caching causes a performance hit, and there was a large user backlash when it was briefly enabled by default some years ago. Kris pgpasGjQM9UXz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
At 01:47 PM 26/01/2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, With the recent release of 4.11 I thought that I would give it a Yes, I found the same thing basically. My test box is a P4 3Ghz with 2G of RAM on a 3ware 8605 controller with 4 drives in RAID5. Virtually every test I did with iozone* showed a difference anywhere from 10-40% in favor of RELENG_4. Note, this is a 2G RAM machine hence the odd result for the 1.5G test ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 41500 37673 23.7 37848 6.6 40784 7.7 97064 99.8 1174906 99.4 89867.4 99.6 43000 38492 24.6 38753 7.0 18396 4.1 80355 86.0 92051 9.9 605.1 1.0 51500 31226 23.0 34529 7.9 36444 8.9 110295 99.8 983156 92.5 27388.8 99.6 53000 33820 26.1 34309 8.3 13339 3.7 59807 56.8 68059 9.8 330.8 0.9 And a local postmark test. RELENG_4 and RELENG_5 pmset size 300 10 pmset location /card0-a pmset transactions 40 pmrun Creating files...Done Performing transactions..Done Deleting files...Done Time: 1219 seconds total 1219 seconds of transactions (328 per second) Files: 200107 created (164 per second) Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199607 files (163 per second) 199905 read (163 per second) 199384 appended (163 per second) 200107 deleted (164 per second) Deletion alone: 889 files (889 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199218 files (163 per second) Data: 12715.55 megabytes read (10.43 megabytes per second) 12728.92 megabytes written (10.44 megabytes per second) pm pmset size 300 10 pmset location /card0-a pmset transactions 40 pmrun Creating files...Done Performing transactions..Done Deleting files...Done Time: 2824 seconds total 2822 seconds of transactions (141 per second) Files: 200107 created (70 per second) Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199607 files (70 per second) 199905 read (70 per second) 199384 appended (70 per second) 200107 deleted (70 per second) Deletion alone: 889 files (889 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199218 files (70 per second) Data: 12715.55 megabytes read (4.50 megabytes per second) 12728.92 megabytes written (4.51 megabytes per second) pm *I have the iozone results in 2 .xls files if anyone wants to see them at http://www.tancsa.com/iozone-r5vsr4.zip ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
I wrote: try running something that works the file system and simply turn off the system power in the middle of it. to which [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied: This is expected if you don't turn off write caching of the hard disks. It breaks the softupdates consistency model because data written to the disk may not actually be written to the disk, so it's not there following an unexpected power cycle. Unfortunately write caching causes a performance hit, and there was a large user backlash when it was briefly enabled by default some years ago. What you say is true, but what I'm observing is far worse than simply missing the last few blocks of output files, etc. The last time I had to power-cycle the Alpha box (because Xorg hung it), it rebooted to single-user mode but I couldn't even run sh because some file in lib was missing. Or if I *do* get into sh to run fsck, it finds *hundreds and hundreds* of problems ... And all of this is on a freshly-installed, bog-standard 5.3 system. Anyway, I'm going to stop messing about with Xorg on that machine, which will doubtless make the problem invisible. And yeah, I know I'm gonna have to stop upgrading my Alpha machines some day, but I was hoping to get 5.something with an X system running as an end-of-life position. The i386 SMP box, though, is another story. I am going to have to nail down its problems if I intend to track FreeBSD on it. If I could suc- cessfully build a kernel on it, I'd turn off SMP and see how it behaves. But it appears that I am the only one suffering ... Thanks for all the responses. Terry [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:53:46PM -0700, Terry R. Friedrichsen wrote: I wrote: try running something that works the file system and simply turn off the system power in the middle of it. to which [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied: This is expected if you don't turn off write caching of the hard disks. It breaks the softupdates consistency model because data written to the disk may not actually be written to the disk, so it's not there following an unexpected power cycle. Unfortunately write caching causes a performance hit, and there was a large user backlash when it was briefly enabled by default some years ago. What you say is true, but what I'm observing is far worse than simply missing the last few blocks of output files, etc. The last time I had to power-cycle the Alpha box (because Xorg hung it), it rebooted to single-user mode but I couldn't even run sh because some file in lib was missing. Or if I *do* get into sh to run fsck, it finds *hundreds and hundreds* of problems ... Some disks are also known to go crazy and scribble everywhere when they lose power. Kris pgpW8MsGTcxhG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote: At 01:47 PM 26/01/2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, With the recent release of 4.11 I thought that I would give it a Yes, I found the same thing basically. My test box is a P4 3Ghz with 2G of RAM on a 3ware 8605 controller with 4 drives in RAID5. Virtually every test I did with iozone* showed a difference anywhere from 10-40% in favor of RELENG_4. Note, this is a 2G RAM machine hence the odd result for the 1.5G test While it's not for the feint of heart, it might be interesting to see how results compare in 6-CURRENT + debugging of various sorts (including malloc) turned off, and debug.mpsafevfs turned on. One possible issue with the twe/twa drivers is that they are currently MPSAFE, so may see substantial contention (and hence additional latency). The move to an MPSAFE VFS will help with that a lot, I should think. Also, while on face value this may seem odd, could you try the following additional variables: - Layer the test UFS partition directly over ad0 instead of ad0s1a - UFS1 vs UFS2 Also please make sure that background fsck is not running during the tests, and that no snapshots are currently defined on the test file system. Finally, in as much as is possible, make sure that the layout of the disks is approximately the same -- as countless benchmarking papers show, there are substantial differences (10%+) in I/O throughput depending on where on the disk surface operations occur. That's one of the reasons to try UFS1 for the test partition, although not the only one. Robert N M Watson ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- MachineMB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 41500 37673 23.7 37848 6.6 40784 7.7 97064 99.8 1174906 99.4 89867.4 99.6 43000 38492 24.6 38753 7.0 18396 4.1 80355 86.0 92051 9.9 605.1 1.0 51500 31226 23.0 34529 7.9 36444 8.9 110295 99.8 983156 92.5 27388.8 99.6 53000 33820 26.1 34309 8.3 13339 3.7 59807 56.8 68059 9.8 330.8 0.9 And a local postmark test. RELENG_4 and RELENG_5 pmset size 300 10 pmset location /card0-a pmset transactions 40 pmrun Creating files...Done Performing transactions..Done Deleting files...Done Time: 1219 seconds total 1219 seconds of transactions (328 per second) Files: 200107 created (164 per second) Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199607 files (163 per second) 199905 read (163 per second) 199384 appended (163 per second) 200107 deleted (164 per second) Deletion alone: 889 files (889 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199218 files (163 per second) Data: 12715.55 megabytes read (10.43 megabytes per second) 12728.92 megabytes written (10.44 megabytes per second) pm pmset size 300 10 pmset location /card0-a pmset transactions 40 pmrun Creating files...Done Performing transactions..Done Deleting files...Done Time: 2824 seconds total 2822 seconds of transactions (141 per second) Files: 200107 created (70 per second) Creation alone: 500 files (500 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199607 files (70 per second) 199905 read (70 per second) 199384 appended (70 per second) 200107 deleted (70 per second) Deletion alone: 889 files (889 per second) Mixed with transactions: 199218 files (70 per second) Data: 12715.55 megabytes read (4.50 megabytes per second) 12728.92 megabytes written (4.51 megabytes per second) pm *I have the iozone results in 2 .xls files if anyone wants to see them at http://www.tancsa.com/iozone-r5vsr4.zip ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Robert Watson wrote: While it's not for the feint of heart, it might be interesting to see how results compare in 6-CURRENT + debugging of various sorts (including malloc) turned off, and debug.mpsafevfs turned on. One possible issue with the twe/twa drivers is that they are currently MPSAFE, so may see substantial contention (and hence additional latency). The move to an MPSAFE VFS will help with that a lot, I should think. And, if you're in the mood for hacking code, and promise not to use snapshots, try making vfs_subr.c:vn_start_write(), vfs_subr.c:vn_write_suspend_wait(), vfs_subr.c:vn_finished_write(), vfs_subr.c:vfs_write_suspend(), and vfs_subr.c:vfs_write_resume() into noop's. These calls are used to avoid some deadlock scenarios associated with snapshot generation, but they also introduce a small but non-trivial amount of overhead to a number of operations. Since you're set up to do some testing, knowing how much of that cost is from these operations should be quite interesting. Robert N M Watson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 file system troubles
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Terry R. Friedrichsen wrote: Is anybody besides *me* having file system corruption problems with FreeBSD 5.3? I've looked around on several of the mailing lists and found no men- tion of this. I have two different platforms on which I'm trying to run FreeBSD 5.3. One is an x86 SMP system (dual AMD Athlon 1900+) and the other is an Alpha DS-10. Could you try setting the following setting in /etc/rc.conf: background_fsck=NO Soft updates is supposed to trickle meta-data changes to the disk 'in order' so that background fsck can make strong assumptions about the consistency of data even after a crash. If these assumptions are being violated -- hardware issues, a bug in the storage driver, gamma radiation from on high, file system bugs, etc, cascading corruption may be possible. While there were many reports of this early in bgfsck development, almost all reports have gone away, with most of the remaining problems being put down the hardware failure. However, it could be you've run into one. Switching to always using foreground fsck should increase the reliability of the scanning process, and result in an early stop if there's unrecoverable corruption that fsck can recognize (it's more rigorous and can handle more failure modes because plain fsck operates under weaker assumptions). Since this seems to be a reproduceable problem, the next step if we can isolate it a bit (and get it caught before catastrophic failure), is to generate some log information about the nature of the corruption as reported by fsck. Typically this is done by reproducing the corruption, booting to single user mode, and then logging fsck -y output to a memory disk, booting multi-user, and e-mailing the fsck output to Kirk. :-) So try switching to foreground fsck (which will slow the boot process), and let's see if this prevents nastier corruption. Begin the process by doing a full manual fsck of all file systems from single-user mode to make sure we start out in a known good state. Don't use -p, as that will force the fsck to really look, not assume the clean flag is right. Thanks, Robert N M Watson On the SMP system, doing anything I/O intensive (like a kernel build) quickly corrupts the file system - I start to encounter problems like being unable to remove entire directory trees because the system thinks that empty directories are not *really* empty and therefore cannot be deleted. Other problems occur, too. On the Alpha system, I'm trying to get Xorg to work, with no success. What normally happens is that the system locks up *totally* either when trying to configure X or when running the X server after configure generates a config file (I'm trying multiple versions of Xorg). The lockup means that I have to power-cycle the system to reboot. When I do this, the filesystem is *always* horribly damaged. I finally gave up when I couldn't even get into sh in single-abuser mode because /libexec/ld.so.1 was no longer there ... What I'm going to try next is pulling one CPU out of the SMP system to see if that helps. On the Alpha, I'm just going to give up on Xorg for a while. I'd hate to have to drop back to 4.10 or 4.11 ... If anyone has any suggestions, or even just sympathetic words, I'd be happy to hear them! Thanks. Terry R. Friedrichsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
Quoting Nick Pavlica ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD 5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A Religious/Engineering War, please don't try to turn it into one. Well, I apologize if I came about that way. The fact seems to be that linux outperforms freebsd in your tests. The question, obviously, is why? To be able to answer, we need to find the places where the 2 systems are different. I suggest creating a webpage, possibly as pure .txt, where all findings are posted. It makes it easier to process with graphical plotting tools and it lowers the bandwidth we all need to transfer. If I were you, I would drop the measurements of raw performance for a bit as we wouldn't gain anything from that. Instead, I would begin to probe the system while the tests are executing. For instance, what does ``vmstat 1'', ``iostat 1'' and (if applicable ``gstat'') report when the test is running in the respective operating systems? What about open filedescriptors (is the limit reached). Does ``systat -vmstat'' show anything odd on FreeBSD while running the tests, etc? I am sure people can fill in more interesting probes to try. Using the probes might alter the outcome of the test, but as we are not testing for performance, this doesn't matter. There is a fair chance that something odd show up. On the other hand, if nothing shows up, we have ruled a lot of possible stuff out. -- jlouis ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
Petri Helenius wrote: Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount options? Async comes to mind first. a) ext3 and xfs are logging filesystems, so the problem with asynchronous metadata updates possibly corrupting the filesystem on a crash doesn't arise. b) asynchronous metadata updates wouldn't have any performance benefit on a dd if=/dev/zero of=tstfile. c) please cut down your quotes, and write your answers below or between the quoted text, instead of the outlook text-above-fullquote style. thanks. mkb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
Matthias Buelow wrote: Petri Helenius wrote: Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount options? Async comes to mind first. a) ext3 and xfs are logging filesystems, so the problem with asynchronous metadata updates possibly corrupting the filesystem on a crash doesn't arise. No, they have a different, though unrelated issues. I didn't notice which filesystem and which options were used for the benchmarks, that's why I was asking about it. b) asynchronous metadata updates wouldn't have any performance benefit on a dd if=/dev/zero of=tstfile. I was not aware that the tests were this simple. c) please cut down your quotes, and write your answers below or between the quoted text, instead of the outlook text-above-fullquote style. thanks. I usually do, however in this case it was intentional. Pete ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
Am Montag, 24. Januar 2005 06:17 schrieb Oliver Fuchs: In addition, was on OS running a window manager and the other not? Was one running ssh and the other not, was FBSD running Linux emu? ... Was one running (insert program) and the other not... In addition to this: - how often did you run your test - what processes/daemons else where running - what is the contents of /etc/fstab - what is the contents of /etc/login.conf - what shell was used - what user was used - ... . Well, these aren't of big interest atm. I posted a question in -current regarding horrible ftp transfer rates (fwe and em transfer rates). He was the only one answering and regrettably confirming my experience. First, tell me why a 866MHz PII machine is full loaded for transfering 22MB/s (over em0 and ftp, disks can do more that 50MB/s, no switch, just direct connect, no packet loss/mutilation...)? There is such a big performance hole that it's really uninteresting if one runs syslogd on one machine and not on the other... -Mano pgpIuQsXrObQT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Emanuel Strobl wrote: Am Montag, 24. Januar 2005 06:17 schrieb Oliver Fuchs: In addition, was on OS running a window manager and the other not? Was one running ssh and the other not, was FBSD running Linux emu? ... Was one running (insert program) and the other not... In addition to this: - how often did you run your test - what processes/daemons else where running - what is the contents of /etc/fstab - what is the contents of /etc/login.conf - what shell was used - what user was used - ... . Well, these aren't of big interest atm. I posted a question in -current regarding horrible ftp transfer rates (fwe and em transfer rates). He was the only one answering and regrettably confirming my experience. First, tell me why a 866MHz PII machine is full loaded for transfering 22MB/s (over em0 and ftp, disks can do more that 50MB/s, no switch, just direct connect, no packet loss/mutilation...)? Hi, that is true but he was not testing the ftp transfer rates but instead ... use Postgresql for our database needs So I think that makes a difference. There is such a big performance hole that it's really uninteresting if one runs syslogd on one machine and not on the other... Again he was not complaining about bad FreeBSD performance but he compared two OSes and came to the conclusion that FreeBSD is not his first choice. So his test was quiet good because his result was that FreeBSD is not the operating system he would recommend. So what I do not understand is why he is sending the mail. I mean I do not want to offend/critisize anybody but he did the test and the result was clear - so he can trust in that. He tried to run his test in a standard environment (although if I had done it I would have used an official release of FreeBSD and not current) and I only wanted to point to some disturbing variabels ... that was all. Maybe there is a performance problem with FreeBSD - but again that was not his question. Oliver -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
Chris wrote: In addition, was on OS running a window manager and the other not? Was I seriously doubt that raw disk performance of such a test is noticably affected by the existence of a window manager, or sshd... mkb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
Oliver Fuchs wrote: Maybe there is a performance problem with FreeBSD - but again that was not his question. I don't know why people are so obsessed with performance.. after all, you can't really load stock Unix systems properly anyways (like, say, an IBM mainframe, which you can keep at 90+% loaded all the time), so it really doesn't matter, as long as the machine is fast enough. What matters a _lot_ more, imho, is stability and robustness, and imho here the attention should lie at this early stage of the 5.x tree. 5.3 robustness is far from spectacular, there're too many ugly bugs still around to bother about peak performance improvements just yet. Make it reliable first, and only then fast. mkb. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount options? Async comes to mind first. Pete Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD 5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A Religious/Engineering War, please don't try to turn it into one. That said, lets move on to something more productive. I installed both operating systems using as many default options as possible and updated them with all of the latest patches. I was logged in via SSH from my workstation while running the tests. I didn't have X, running on any of the installations because it wasn't need. CPU and RAM utilization wasn't an issue during any of the tests, but the disk I/O performance was dramatically different. Please keep in mind that I ran these tests over and over to see if I had consistent results. I even did the same tests on other pieces of equipment not listed in my notes that yielded the same results time and time again. Some have confirmed that they have had similar results in there testing using other testing tools and methods. This makes me wounder why the gap is so large, and how it can be improved? I think that it would be beneficial to have others in this group do similar testing and post there results. This may help those that are working on the OS itself to find trouble areas, and ways to improve them. It may also help clarify many of the response questions because you will be able to completely control the testing environment. I look forward to seeing the testing results, and any good feedback that helps identify specific tuning options, or bugs that need to be addressed. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica --Laramie, WY ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
PH Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:08:52 +0200 PH From: Petri Helenius PH To: Nick Pavlica PH Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount PH options? Async comes to mind first. speculation He _did_ say as many default options as possible... does Linux still mount async by default? /speculation Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion
I didn't change any of the default mount options on either OS. FreeBSD: # cat /etc/fstab # DeviceMountpoint FStype Options DumpPass# /dev/ad0s1b noneswapsw 0 0 /dev/ad0s1a / ufs rw 1 1 /dev/ad0s1e /tmpufs rw 2 2 /dev/ad0s1f /usrufs rw 2 2 /dev/ad0s1d /varufs rw 2 2 /dev/acd0 /cdrom cd9660 ro,noauto 0 0 # mount /dev/ad0s1a on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/ad0s1e on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/ad0s1f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/ad0s1d on /var (ufs, local, soft-updates) Linux: # cat /etc/fstab # This file is edited by fstab-sync - see 'man fstab-sync' for details LABEL=/1/ xfs defaults1 1 LABEL=/boot1/boot xfs defaults1 2 none/dev/ptsdevpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 none/dev/shmtmpfs defaults0 0 none/proc procdefaults0 0 none/syssysfs defaults0 0 LABEL=SWAP-sda2 swapswapdefaults0 0 /dev/scd0 /media/cdromauto pamconsole,exec,noauto,managed 0 0 /dev/fd0/media/floppy auto pamconsole,exec,noauto,managed 0 0 # mount /dev/sda3 on / type xfs (rw) none on /proc type proc (rw) none on /sys type sysfs (rw) none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw) /dev/sda1 on /boot type xfs (rw) none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) none on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw) sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw) --- --Nick On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:08:52 +0200, Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure you aren't comparing filesystems with different mount options? Async comes to mind first. Pete Nick Pavlica wrote: All, I would like to start addressing some of the feedback that I have been given. I started this discussion because I felt that it was important to share the information I discovered in my testing. I also want to reiterate my earlier statement that this is not an X vs. X discussion, but an attempt to better understand the results, and hopefully look at ways of improving the results I had with FreeBSD 5.x. I'm also looking forward to seeing the improvements to the 5.x branch as it matures. I want to make it very clear that this is NOT A Religious/Engineering War, please don't try to turn it into one. That said, lets move on to something more productive. I installed both operating systems using as many default options as possible and updated them with all of the latest patches. I was logged in via SSH from my workstation while running the tests. I didn't have X, running on any of the installations because it wasn't need. CPU and RAM utilization wasn't an issue during any of the tests, but the disk I/O performance was dramatically different. Please keep in mind that I ran these tests over and over to see if I had consistent results. I even did the same tests on other pieces of equipment not listed in my notes that yielded the same results time and time again. Some have confirmed that they have had similar results in there testing using other testing tools and methods. This makes me wounder why the gap is so large, and how it can be improved? I think that it would be beneficial to have others in this group do similar testing and post there results. This may help those that are working on the OS itself to find trouble areas, and ways to improve them. It may also help clarify many of the response questions because you will be able to completely control the testing environment. I look forward to seeing the testing results, and any good feedback that helps identify specific tuning options, or bugs that need to be addressed. Thanks! --Nick Pavlica --Laramie, WY ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: FreeBSD 5.3 on Compaq ProLiant 1500
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jeremy pedersen Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:22 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD 5.3 on Compaq ProLiant 1500 I have an old Compaq ProLiant 1500 that I would like to install FreeBSD on, but the installation process freezes while attempting to load the installation. The following is the line(s) on which FreeBSD hangs: device_attach: ida0 attach returned 12 eisab0: PCI-EISA bridge at device 15.0 on pci0 *note, this is using the selection: 1. Boot FreeBSD (default) all the information I have on the server's hardware is as follows: 1) 2 pentium processors at 166Mhz 2) 5 ultra wide SCSI drives in raid 5 configuration. One drive is a logical drive. 3) one CD drive, it is not IDE, but I am not quite sure what else it could be. This is all the information I have to work with. Any help would be appreciated very much. Hi Jeremy, The Compaq Smart Array driver (ida) has had a problem with EISA adapters ever since it was introduced into FreeBSD. I've written the developer and offered to ship him a system, he requested I set up a system and let him remotely access it. Unfortunately I never got the time to do so. If you have a spare ide drive, set it up and put a skeleton FreeBSD system on the ide drive, put it on the Internet so it can be reached, then contact the ida driver and I'm sure he will get it running for you. It would be nice to get this running. In the meantime I use mine to run Solaris 2.5.1 x86. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 CD2 ?
AFAIK - The 2nd CD only contains additional software packages ... faisal gillani schrieb: i installed freebsd 5.3 the first cd installed everything i needed , but i got 2 cds with freebsd , i browsed it but couldent understand wat is it for ? = *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ Allah-hu-Akber*º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kind regards DAn.I.El S. Haischt Want a complete signature??? Type at a shell prompt: $ finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 CD2 ?
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 10:13, Daniel S. Haischt wrote: AFAIK - The 2nd CD only contains additional software packages ... faisal gillani schrieb: i installed freebsd 5.3 the first cd installed everything i needed , but i got 2 cds with freebsd , i browsed it but couldent understand wat is it for ? = *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ Allah-hu-Akber*º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The second CD is a live filesystem, useful for repairing damaged installations. More packages are available on disks 3 and 4, which need to be purchased - there are no ISO images for download. (However, all the additional packages are available for installation by means of pkg_add -r). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, This post is not about BSD VS. Linux and should not be taken that way. I think that Flame Wars/Engineer Wars are waste of time and energy. I was surprised by my test results and didn't want to take FBSD out of the loop just yet. There may be flaws in my testing that have led me to inaccurate results. I didn't share the testing details in the original mail because of time constraints, and the notes are fairly lengthy. I will add my notes to this mail so that there is a better understanding of what tests I performed, and their results. It's important to note that I did not tweak any of the default settings of the OS or DB. The notes should be generally self explanatory, but will be more that happy to clarify any questions that you have. As a side note, I chose the email address linicks because by name is Nick, and thought it was a fun play on words. I appreciate all of your feedback, so that I can better understand the differences in these great operating systems and communities. Thanks Again! --Nick Pavlica OK, The testing notes already :) Hi, please put your test results on a web page so that everyone who is interested can look them up and everyone who is not interested does not have to pay for receiving such a long mail. You are using different versions of postgresql? Did you set up the three systems with the same partitioning or did you set up all three on one harddrive? What is the meaning of this email: regarding your test FreeBSD is not as fast as the other OSes - so what do you want to know? I do not get it. Oliver -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
Oliver Fuchs wrote: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, This post is not about BSD VS. Linux and should not be taken that way. I think that Flame Wars/Engineer Wars are waste of time and energy. I was surprised by my test results and didn't want to take FBSD out of the loop just yet. There may be flaws in my testing that have led me to inaccurate results. I didn't share the testing details in the original mail because of time constraints, and the notes are fairly lengthy. I will add my notes to this mail so that there is a better understanding of what tests I performed, and their results. It's important to note that I did not tweak any of the default settings of the OS or DB. The notes should be generally self explanatory, but will be more that happy to clarify any questions that you have. As a side note, I chose the email address linicks because by name is Nick, and thought it was a fun play on words. I appreciate all of your feedback, so that I can better understand the differences in these great operating systems and communities. Thanks Again! --Nick Pavlica OK, The testing notes already :) Hi, please put your test results on a web page so that everyone who is interested can look them up and everyone who is not interested does not have to pay for receiving such a long mail. You are using different versions of postgresql? Did you set up the three systems with the same partitioning or did you set up all three on one harddrive? What is the meaning of this email: regarding your test FreeBSD is not as fast as the other OSes - so what do you want to know? I do not get it. Oliver In addition, was on OS running a window manager and the other not? Was one running ssh and the other not, was FBSD running Linux emu? ... Was one running (insert program) and the other not... When you run each side by side, process for process, thread for thread, version for version - nothing extra on one over the other, then post your results. Funny thing about polls/tests/ etc. the results can be portrayed to reflect one biased point of view over another. I apologize for my cynicism - but I don't put a heck of a lot of faith in any type of poll (in your case, a test) that can be tainted by the slightest bit of prejudice. -- Best regards, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Chris wrote: Oliver Fuchs wrote: On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Nick Pavlica wrote: All, This post is not about BSD VS. Linux and should not be taken that way. I think that Flame Wars/Engineer Wars are waste of time and energy. I was surprised by my test results and didn't want to take FBSD out of the loop just yet. There may be flaws in my testing that have led me to inaccurate results. I didn't share the testing details in the original mail because of time constraints, and the notes are fairly lengthy. I will add my notes to this mail so that there is a better understanding of what tests I performed, and their results. It's important to note that I did not tweak any of the default settings of the OS or DB. The notes should be generally self explanatory, but will be more that happy to clarify any questions that you have. As a side note, I chose the email address linicks because by name is Nick, and thought it was a fun play on words. I appreciate all of your feedback, so that I can better understand the differences in these great operating systems and communities. Thanks Again! --Nick Pavlica OK, The testing notes already :) Hi, please put your test results on a web page so that everyone who is interested can look them up and everyone who is not interested does not have to pay for receiving such a long mail. You are using different versions of postgresql? Did you set up the three systems with the same partitioning or did you set up all three on one harddrive? What is the meaning of this email: regarding your test FreeBSD is not as fast as the other OSes - so what do you want to know? I do not get it. Oliver In addition, was on OS running a window manager and the other not? Was one running ssh and the other not, was FBSD running Linux emu? ... Was one running (insert program) and the other not... In addition to this: - how often did you run your test - what processes/daemons else where running - what is the contents of /etc/fstab - what is the contents of /etc/login.conf - what shell was used - what user was used - ... . When you run each side by side, process for process, thread for thread, version for version - nothing extra on one over the other, then post your results. Funny thing about polls/tests/ etc. the results can be portrayed to reflect one biased point of view over another. I apologize for my cynicism - but I don't put a heck of a lot of faith in any type of poll (in your case, a test) that can be tainted by the slightest bit of prejudice. Besides this - the speed is only one aspect when it comes to choose a OS. Oliver -- ... don't touch the bang bang fruit ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
All, This post is not about BSD VS. Linux and should not be taken that way. I think that Flame Wars/Engineer Wars are waste of time and energy. I was surprised by my test results and didn't want to take FBSD out of the loop just yet. There may be flaws in my testing that have led me to inaccurate results. I didn't share the testing details in the original mail because of time constraints, and the notes are fairly lengthy. I will add my notes to this mail so that there is a better understanding of what tests I performed, and their results. It's important to note that I did not tweak any of the default settings of the OS or DB. The notes should be generally self explanatory, but will be more that happy to clarify any questions that you have. As a side note, I chose the email address linicks because by name is Nick, and thought it was a fun play on words. I appreciate all of your feedback, so that I can better understand the differences in these great operating systems and communities. Thanks Again! --Nick Pavlica OK, The testing notes already :) --- Hardware Configs: Dell PE 2400 - Dual PIII 500Mhz - 512Mb Ram - Perc 2si controller - (2) 10k ultra160 drives in a raid 1 configuration. Dell SC400 - P4 2.4 Ghz (not hyperthreaded) - 512Mb Ram - Stock 40Gb IDE 7200RPM Postgresql Test Scripts: CREATE TABLE test1 ( thedate TIMESTAMP, astring VARCHAR(200), anumber INTEGER ); CREATE FUNCTION build_data() RETURNS integer AS ' DECLARE i INTEGER DEFAULT 0; curtime TIMESTAMP; BEGIN FOR i IN 1..100 LOOP curtime := ''now''; INSERT INTO test1 VALUES (curtime, ''test string'', i); END LOOP; RETURN 1; END; ' LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'; SELECT build_data(); Then the following script is run under the time program to ascertain how long it takes to run: CREATE TABLE test2 ( thedate TIMESTAMP, astring VARCHAR(200), anumber INTEGER ); CREATE TABLE test3 AS SELECT * FROM test1; INSERT INTO test2 SELECT * FROM test1 WHERE ((anumber % 2) = 0); DELETE FROM test3 WHERE ((anumber % 2) = 0); DELETE FROM test3 WHERE ((anumber % 13) = 0); CREATE TABLE test4 AS SELECT test1.thedate AS t1date, test2.thedate AS t2date, test1.astring AS t1string, test2.astring AS t2string, test1.anumber AS t1number, test2.anumber AS t2number FROM test1 JOIN test2 ON test1.anumber=test2.anumber; UPDATE test3 SET thedate='now' WHERE ((anumber % 5) = 0); DROP TABLE test4; CREATE TABLE test4 AS SELECT * FROM test1; DELETE FROM test4 WHERE ((anumber % 27) = 0); VACUUM ANALYZE; VACUUM FULL; DROP TABLE test4; DROP TABLE test3; DROP TABLE test2; VACUUM FULL; - sc400 freeBSD5: $ time dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=tstfile count=1M 1048576+0 records in 1048576+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 71.807645 secs (14953029 bytes/sec) 71.82real 0.68 user 8.83 sys 71.82 / 60 = 1.197 -- 517 nick.pavlica -160 1212K 588K wdrain 0:02 12.35% 5.91% dd 517 nick.pavlica -160 1212K 588K wdrain 0:13 12.48% 12.35% dd $ time dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=tstfile count=2M 2097152+0 records in 2097152+0 records out 2147483648 bytes transferred in 136.815925 secs (15696153 bytes/sec) 136.85 real 1.29 user17.49 sys 136.85 / 60 = 2.28083 -- 542 nick.pavlica -160 1212K 588K wdrain 0:19 13.35% 13.33% dd 542 nick.pavlica -160 1212K 588K wdrain 0:24 12.99% 12.99% dd $ time dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=tstfile count=3M 3145728+0 records in 3145728+0 records out 3221225472 bytes transferred in 205.722425 secs (15658115 bytes/sec) 205.72 real 1.82 user27.39 sys 205.72 / 60 = 3.42867 copy test: 558 nick.pavlica -40 1272K 680K getblk 0:01 2.30% 1.32% cp 558 nick.pavlica -40 1272K 680K getblk 0:02 1.80% 1.71% cp 558 nick.pavlica -40 1272K 680K getblk 0:03 1.87% 1.86% cp $ time cp tstfile tstfile2 579.31 real 0.03 user14.61 sys 579.31 / 60 = 9.65517 (FreeBSD 5.3+ on SC400) b test 1: 535 nick.pavlica -40 2380K 1216K getblk 0:17 2.84% 2.83% bonnie++ 568 nick.pavlica 1050 2380K 1196K RUN 0:09 92.99% 36.62% bonnie++ 568 nick.pavlica -160 2380K 1192K wdrain 0:14 12.35% 11.23% bonnie++ $ bonnie++ -s 1024 -r 512 -n 5 Writing a byte at a time...done Writing intelligently...done Rewriting...done Reading a byte at a time...done Reading intelligently...done start 'em...done...done...done...done...done... Create files in sequential order...done. Stat files in sequential order...done. Delete files in sequential order...done. Create files in random order...done. Stat files
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | More Info
it was said: All, This post is not about BSD VS. Linux and should not be taken that way. I think that Flame Wars/Engineer Wars are waste of time and energy. I was surprised by my test results and didn't want to take FBSD out of the loop just yet. There may be flaws in my testing that have led me to inaccurate results. I didn't share the testing details in the original mail because of time constraints, and the notes are fairly lengthy. I will add my notes to this mail so that there is a better understanding of what tests I performed, and their results. It's important to note that I did not tweak any of the default settings of the OS or DB. The notes should be generally self explanatory, but will be more that happy to clarify any questions that you have. As a side note, I chose the email address linicks because by name is Nick, and thought it was a fun play on words. I appreciate all of your feedback, so that I can better understand the differences in these great operating systems and communities. Thanks Again! --Nick Pavlica Hello, I'm glad you weren't trolling. I, too, think the OS wars are a load of cark. Each OS has it strengths and weaknesses. Time is better spent increasing the strengths and fixing the weaknesses than arguing about whose are _better_. I can say right off that FBSD's out-of-the-box state is intended for stability rather than performance. The real question is what they do after tuning. Here I would expect FBSD to do somewhat better, especially on the uni-processor machine. Running the tests on the SC400 hardware won't be a problem for me, but I have no spare SMP or SCSI equipment to do the PE2400 tests - which I think would be the more interesting. Perhaps someone else on the list can do this? Not to provide a head-to-head showdown but to see if something is actually wrong that isn't already being looked at. (Everyone knows threading has problems that are being dealt with. That's why I'm not so sure FBSD will out-perform Fedora at this time on an SMP box.) To be on the safe side, I'll cc this to the performance list, as well. Maybe someone has already done something similar and has quick answers. Thus, I'm including unquoted the rest of your email below. Finally, the addy thing was just me getting in a shot at you if you had turned out to be trolling. Regards, stheg The tests and results below here. I don't know how the formatting is going to turn out. If its too mangled, see the original post on questions@ OK, The testing notes already :) --- Hardware Configs: Dell PE 2400 - Dual PIII 500Mhz - 512Mb Ram - Perc 2si controller - (2) 10k ultra160 drives in a raid 1 configuration. Dell SC400 - P4 2.4 Ghz (not hyperthreaded) - 512Mb Ram - Stock 40Gb IDE 7200RPM Postgresql Test Scripts: CREATE TABLE test1 ( thedate TIMESTAMP, astring VARCHAR(200), anumber INTEGER ); CREATE FUNCTION build_data() RETURNS integer AS ' DECLARE i INTEGER DEFAULT 0; curtime TIMESTAMP; BEGIN FOR i IN 1..100 LOOP curtime := ''now''; INSERT INTO test1 VALUES (curtime, ''test string'', i); END LOOP; RETURN 1; END; ' LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'; SELECT build_data(); Then the following script is run under the time program to ascertain how long it takes to run: CREATE TABLE test2 ( thedate TIMESTAMP, astring VARCHAR(200), anumber INTEGER ); CREATE TABLE test3 AS SELECT * FROM test1; INSERT INTO test2 SELECT * FROM test1 WHERE ((anumber % 2) = 0); DELETE FROM test3 WHERE ((anumber % 2) = 0); DELETE FROM test3 WHERE ((anumber % 13) = 0); CREATE TABLE test4 AS SELECT test1.thedate AS t1date, test2.thedate AS t2date, test1.astring AS t1string, test2.astring AS t2string, test1.anumber AS t1number, test2.anumber AS t2number FROM test1 JOIN test2 ON test1.anumber=test2.anumber; UPDATE test3 SET thedate='now' WHERE ((anumber % 5) = 0); DROP TABLE test4; CREATE TABLE test4 AS SELECT * FROM test1; DELETE FROM test4 WHERE ((anumber % 27) = 0); VACUUM ANALYZE; VACUUM FULL; DROP TABLE test4; DROP TABLE test3; DROP TABLE test2; VACUUM FULL; - sc400 freeBSD5: $ time dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=tstfile count=1M 1048576+0 records in 1048576+0 records out 1073741824 bytes transferred in 71.807645 secs (14953029 bytes/sec) 71.82real 0.68 user 8.83 sys 71.82 / 60 = 1.197 -- 517 nick.pavlica -160 1212K 588K wdrain 0:02 12.35% 5.91% dd 517 nick.pavlica -160 1212K 588K wdrain 0:13 12.48% 12.35% dd $ time dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=tstfile count=2M 2097152+0 records in 2097152+0 records out 2147483648 bytes transferred in 136.815925 secs (15696153 bytes/sec) 136.85 real 1.29
Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:20:58PM -0700, Nick Pavlica wrote: To be sure that I was using up to date versions of each OS I performed a cvsup and rebuilt the kernel (GENERIC) during the FBSD setup, and a yum update on the Linux install. Most likely unrelated to your performance question, but you generally don't want to update only your kernel on FreeBSD. The userland and kernel should normally be in sync. -T -- If enlightenment is not where you are standing, where will you look? - Zen saying ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
