Re: nve0 nvidia onboard ethernet dies daily on 6.0 beta1
Kövesdán Gábor wrote: alan bryan wrote: --- Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The nve driver has a lot of problems. You experienced just device timeouts, but other people - including me - experiences system crashes. As for me, I've had two kind of kernel panics, and device timeouts too. Cheers, Gabor Kovesdan Do you (or does anyone else here) have any recommendations then on a good PCI express (no plain PCI slots) ethernet card that doesn't use the nve driver? Maybe an Intel card? Gigabit speeds preferably. I could then use that until the nve driver gets fixed (Is somebody even working on fixing it?). Thanks, Alan No, unfortunately I don't know about a good alternative. I don't think anybody is working on it now. Maxime Henrion and Quinton Dolan committed changes to that driver, but unfortunately it didn't make things better. Cheers, Gábor Kövesdán Hello. I'm also interested in fixing the omnipresent nve-problems, but reading the manpages for nve(4) reveals the bad circumstance that this driver seems to be 'wrapped' around a Linux binary object. Nvidia obviously isn't willing to offer documentation about the chip's internals so it will be hard to develop an open source driver for this NIC. That sounds to me to get happy with a 'ever GIANT locked' nve NIC using FreeBSD 6.X Oliver ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nve0 nvidia onboard ethernet dies daily on 6.0 beta1
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 12:27:28PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: I'm also interested in fixing the omnipresent nve-problems, but reading the manpages for nve(4) reveals the bad circumstance that this driver seems to be 'wrapped' around a Linux binary object. Nvidia obviously isn't willing to offer documentation about the chip's internals so it will be hard to develop an open source driver for this NIC. That sounds to me to get happy with a 'ever GIANT locked' nve NIC using FreeBSD 6.X The Linux kernel includes a real opensource driver in the kernel for some time now, called 'forcedeth'. It seems that this works better than the nVidia driver. See http://www.hailfinger.org/carldani/linux/patches/forcedeth/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/nforce-net-to-forcedeth.htm For someone with enough driver-writing-fu it would be possible to look at the linux code and port it (GPL), or even better, write a new BSD licensed driver based on the things they do. That someone is not me, however... --Stijn -- Tact, n.: The unsaid part of what you're thinking. pgpphWJQ6RIj3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nve0 nvidia onboard ethernet dies daily on 6.0 beta1
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, O. Hartmann wrote: Hello. I'm also interested in fixing the omnipresent nve-problems, but reading the manpages for nve(4) reveals the bad circumstance that this driver seems to be 'wrapped' around a Linux binary object. Nvidia obviously isn't willing to offer documentation about the chip's internals so it will be hard to develop an open source driver for this NIC. That sounds to me to get happy with a 'ever GIANT locked' nve NIC using FreeBSD 6.X The linux forcedeth driver is supposedly quite decent nowadays, nvidia even helped adding gigabit support. It should be a good source of information for building an opensource bsd driver. That said, nvidia just aint too great at building ethernet chips, if decent performance is a requirement I'd suggest getting something else. -- Sten Spans There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in. Leonard Cohen - Anthem ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update from 5.4RELESE to 5.4RELEASEP1 how
Hi, this is pretty well documented in (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html), but here are the steps I use: (if no cvsup is installed) # pkg_add -r cvsup-without-gui (norwegian cvsup mirror) # cvsup -h cvsup.no.freebsd.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile # cd /usr/src # make buildworld -j 4 # make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # mergemaster -p # make installworld # reboot (Actually, I have setup KERNCONF in /etc/make.conf, so I just skip the KERCONF part). Regards, Daniel Bond Hi, I am new to FreeBSD. Please let me know the setup steps to update from 5.4RELEASE to 5.4RELEASEP1. Thanks, - Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update from 5.4RELESE to 5.4RELEASEP1 how
I'm sorry, I wrote the last mail a little quickly, and forgot a very important point! (if no cvsup is installed) # pkg_add -r cvsup-without-gui (norwegian cvsup mirror) # cvsup -h cvsup.no.freebsd.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile # cd /usr/src # make buildworld -j 4 # make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # mergemaster -p # make installworld # reboot should be: # cvsup -h cvsup.no.freebsd.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile # cd /usr/src # make buildworld -j 4 # make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # mergemaster -p # make installworld # mergemaster # reboot Sorry for the type-o/mistake. Kind Regards, Daniel Bond ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update from 5.4RELESE to 5.4RELEASEP1 how
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:39:00 +0200 (CEST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm sorry, I wrote the last mail a little quickly, and forgot a very important point! (if no cvsup is installed) # pkg_add -r cvsup-without-gui (norwegian cvsup mirror) # cvsup -h cvsup.no.freebsd.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile # cd /usr/src # make buildworld -j 4 # make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # mergemaster -p # make installworld # reboot should be: # cvsup -h cvsup.no.freebsd.org /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile # cd /usr/src # make buildworld -j 4 # make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # mergemaster -p # make installworld # mergemaster # reboot Sorry for the type-o/mistake. This works, but it is not safe. The documented procedure is: # make buildworld # make buildkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # make installkernel KERNCONF=mykernel # mergemaster -p # shutdown -r now reboot to single user mode! # adjkerntz -i # swapon -a # mount -a -t ufs # cd /usr/src # make installworld # mergemaster # reboot The added reboot allows you to confirm that the new kernel is OK before installing the new system. If you have installed world and then cant boot the new kernel, you might being very bad shape, depending on what has changed between the new and old system. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APIC problems on FreeBSD/amd64 panic: Can't find ExtINT pin to route through!
Hi, On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:10:27AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: (Sun V20z server booting and crashing with SMP kernel and acpi on).. ACPI APIC Table: PTLTD APIC FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 MADT: Forcing active-low polarity and level trigger for SCI ioapic0 Version 0.0 irqs 0-0 on motherboard ioapic1 Version 1.1 irqs 1-4 on motherboard panic: Can't find ExtINT pin to route through! cpuid = 0 Uptime: 1s Automatic reboot in 15 seconds - press a key on the console to abort You're first APIC claims to have 0 IRQs assigned, and the second claims to have only 4! Can you provide boot -v output as well as the output of acpidump -t and mptable? This is not a problem with irq0, your box seems much more hosed. There's no way you can expect a box to run with only four IRQs. :) For the record (mail archive): I tried updating to the latest BIOS for this server today, some 6 weeks later. Now it boots a SMP kernel with acpi just fine: (..) FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 MADT: Forcing active-low polarity and level trigger for SCI ioapic0 Version 1.1 irqs 0-23 on motherboard ioapic1 Version 1.1 irqs 24-27 on motherboard ioapic2 Version 1.1 irqs 28-31 on motherboard acpi0: PTLTDXSDT on motherboard acpi0: Power Button (fixed) acpi0: Sleep Button (fixed) (..) I get some error messages like unknown: I/O range not supported though. I had the SMP+acpi problems with this set of BIOS/firmware versions: $ inventory get software Name Revision Install Date Description BIOS-V20z V1.32.7.2 Sat Jun 25 06:15:08 2005 Platform BIOS for V20z servers Operator Panel X1.0.1.0 Wed Mar 30 16:59:59 2005 Operator Panel Firmware PPCBootV2.1.0.16 Sat Jun 25 06:07:30 2005 PPCBoot Software SP Value-Add V2.2.0.18 Sat Jun 25 06:08:02 2005 SP Value-Add Software SP BaseV2.2.0.18 Sat Jun 25 06:08:02 2005 SP Base Software While this (which I am using now) seems to work fine: $ inventory get software Name Revision Install Date Description DiagnosticsV2.3.0.9 Thu Feb 12 02:40:05 1970 Server Diagnostics BIOS-V20z V1.33.5.2 Fri Aug 19 22:44:42 2005 Platform BIOS for V20z servers Operator Panel X1.0.1.0 Wed Mar 30 16:59:59 2005 Operator Panel Firmware PPCBootV2.1.0.16 Sat Jun 25 06:07:30 2005 PPCBoot Software SP Value-Add V2.3.0.11 Fri Aug 19 22:30:06 2005 SP Value-Add Software SP BaseV2.3.0.11 Fri Aug 19 22:30:06 2005 SP Base Software Regards, -- Anders. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?
Hi all, I'm a sysadmin and a web-programmer at a company in the Netherlands. In the following month we will launch a webshop which will have a estimated 1000 full hits in the first weeks (estimated through calculation of the marketing-departement). I am writing the webshop, and have installed the webserver. Because of issues with our housing, we can't put our HP webserver to use, since it produces to much noise in our very small building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to spare. The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done. I trust the laptop enough to get the job done, but I wonder if 6.0-BETA2 will be up for the task. I heard rumours that it should be more stable and faster then 5.4-RELEASE (which I use mostly nowadays), but it IS beta after all. On the other hand, I get the impression that 6.0 is the release of choice for deploying anything on a laptop (considering that darned Pentium-M). Another thing, I do not fully trust the combination of Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP 5.0, since they are all quite new in the frontlines. This would be a decent testcase for 6.0, but the thing is... I can't afford any crashes (this webshop is considered to settle the future for our company) and we are talking about a laptop here. I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice? I'm not subscribed to the list (allthough I follow the archives now and then) so please CC me. Thanks. -- Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek Pakhuisweg 16-II 6718 XJ Ede T: 06-43536482 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:42:18 +0200, Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I'm a sysadmin and a web-programmer at a company in the Netherlands. In the following month we will launch a webshop which will have a estimated 1000 full hits in the first weeks (estimated through calculation of the marketing-departement). I am writing the webshop, and have installed the webserver. Because of issues with our housing, we can't put our HP webserver to use, since it produces to much noise in our very small building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to spare. What do you mean by 1000 hits? Is it 1000 customers or 1000 http requests? 1000 hits a week is 1000 / ( 7 * 24 * 60 ) = 0 hits per minute or 5 in an hour. If your laptop crashes every 10 minutes there is a change no customer wil notice it. The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done. I trust the laptop enough to get the job done, but I wonder if 6.0-BETA2 will be up for the task. I heard rumours that it should be more stable and faster then 5.4-RELEASE (which I use mostly nowadays), but it IS beta after all. On the other hand, I get the impression that 6.0 is the release of choice for deploying anything on a laptop (considering that darned Pentium-M). Another thing, I do not fully trust the combination of Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP 5.0, since they are all quite new in the frontlines. This would be a decent testcase for 6.0, but the thing is... I can't afford any crashes (this webshop is considered to settle the future for our company) and we are talking about a laptop here. Funny to settle the future for a company this way. I hope your customers aren't reading this. ;-) I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice? You are asking a silly question. It comes down to I'm running BETA software. Can I expect this to be STABLE?. If it is stable, it wil say stable in the version number. Except for Apache all your software is beta, but from sourcecode which is quite mature for some time. You can only answer this question by inviting 1000 (virtual) friends and ask them to buy something in your webshop. Ronald. -- Ronald Klop Amsterdam, The Netherlands ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?
Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek wrote: Hi all, I'm a sysadmin and a web-programmer at a company in the Netherlands. In the following month we will launch a webshop which will have a estimated 1000 full hits in the first weeks (estimated through calculation of the marketing-departement). I am writing the webshop, and have installed the webserver. Because of issues with our housing, we can't put our HP webserver to use, since it produces to much noise in our very small building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to spare. I would recommend: Not to use a laptop for a web (or any sort of) server, as laptops typically are not designed for this sort of use (e.g. some will overheat if you never let 'em sleep, and they generally have terrible IO performance). Find yourself a spare desktop box (e.g. a fast PIII with 512Mb will be at least as fast and more reliable as a server). There should be no noise issue with such a box either (funnily enough, I'm typing this on a PIII 1Ghz with 512Mb - and it's pretty much silent). Run 5.4-RELEASE or 5.4-STABLE (or 4.11-RELEASE even), as, ahem, they are stable Finally did you really mean 1000 hits per week? Cheers Mark ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0-BETA2 as reliable webserver?
On Fri, 2005-Aug-19 23:42:18 +0200, Frans-Jan v. Steenbeek wrote: building. Since we are moving in a few months, we decided to use a HP laptop instead (reasonably fast CPU, 512 Megs) since we had a few to spare. The toy is currently set up with FreeBSD 6.0-BETA2, Apache 2.0, MySQL 5.0 and PHP-5.0 with all the reasonable modules. Everything is compiled from ports. No changes to the kernel yet, no world-rebuilding done. I'd also be extremely loath to bet my company on a laptop running beta software. As others have pointed out, laptops aren't designed for this. (Though my old Compaq laptop ran FreeBSD 24x7 for several years and I only stopped using it because the lid was cracking too badly). If you're really concerned about noise: - use an older desktop and maybe even underclock it to keep it cooler - build your own system. Either go the low power route (mini-ITX) so you don't need noisy fans or use an over-rated PSU and CPU heatsink to keep fan speed (and noise) down. In either case, you'll need to look around to find a quiet HDD. - [as a completely left-field suggestion] look at something like an Apple G5 system - large fans running slowly generate very little noise. At the very least, you need to build a test harness to test the system under load (and maybe get some friends and/or friendly customers to hammer it as well). Whilst all the software is derived from a mature code-base, I'd be surprised if you can't crash it. I will post all problems not yet reported to the list, but if anyone of you would like to share his or her opinion on this matter, please let me know. Will 4.11-RELEASE perhaps be a better choice? 4.x is definitely more mature than 6.x. That said, I'd recommend against deploying 4.x in a new system because it is a dead end - you'll need to migrate off it at some point and that's far easier to do before a system goes live. You made the point that you support for newer hardware is better in newer releases. Why not use 5.4? As you point out, you are more familiar with it. And, once 6.x does become more stable, moving from 5.x to 6.x will be far easier than moving from 4.x to 6.x. -- Peter Jeremy ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
