Re: pf(4) using inapropriate timeout values, 6.2-R
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 09:21:42PM +0100, Jan Srzednicki wrote:
> I'm positively sure it's precisely this value that timeouts this
> conection (which later on get state mismatches).
What does pfctl -vvss show for such a state entry, in particular the
right-most part of the first line ("ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED" while the
connection is still fully established, etc.)?
Does it matter which side of the connection (the client or the server)
half-closes the connection?
It's possible that there's a bug in mapping the timeout, I'll check.
Daniel
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
On Nov 19, 2007 8:03 AM, Alexey Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ivan Voras wrote: > > > > Also, did you try configuring and running pecl-APC for PHP?'s > I'm using eAccelerator. Again, the same soft works good on less-CPU > system and on Linux. FWIW, when playing with eaccelerator on RELENG_7 recently, I noticed that it seems to chew a lot of extra system time (as seen in top) when used with Apache+mod_fastcgi, but not when used with nginx. I didn't investigate. Matt ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
psm GlidePoint problems on 7.0b3
Just installed 7.0b3 on a Sony VAIO laptop which has an ALPS GlidePoint touchpad. System ran 6.2 and earlier FreeBSD versions without problems. On 7.0b3, there are several touchpad problems. Things work fine after the initial boot, both on the console and in xorg. I am running moused: /usr/sbin/moused -3 -m 1=4 -p /dev/psm0 -t auto and have the following in xorg.conf: Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Mouse0" Driver "mouse" Option "Protocol" "auto" Option "Device" "/dev/sysmouse" EndSection Those settings have been there for years, over several earlier FreeBSD versions, without problems. But now, on 7.0b3, after an APCI suspend and resume: 1. the touchpad's tap feature no longer works => adding hint.psm.0.flags="0x6000" to set HOOKRESUME and INITAFTERSUSPEND seems to cure this, despite this not being needed under previous FreeBSD versions. 2. after every resume it's as if a middle-click has been done: the last selected text is pasted back again. This could have possibly serious consequences depending on what text is present and what application the mouse is over when the unwanted paste occurs. 3. occasionally when moving the cursor using the touchpad, the coordinates suddenly jump unexpectedly to a new place on the screen, as in several hundred pixels away. These jumps seem to be of varying x and y offsets and direction. I am also seeing occasional menu pop-ups as if left-clicks or keyboard input (such as Alt-F) has been done - but all I am doing is moving the mouse using the touchpad! dmesg is: atkbdc0: port 0x60,0x64 irq 1 on acpi0 atkbd0: irq 1 on atkbdc0 kbd0 at atkbd0 atkbd0: [GIANT-LOCKED] atkbd0: [ITHREAD] psm0: flags 0x6000 irq 12 on atkbdc0 psm0: [GIANT-LOCKED] psm0: [ITHREAD] psm0: model GlidePoint, device ID 0 Other than the 0x6000 flags hint, I have not changed any of the mouse settings during the freebsd-7.0 upgrade. Are some other changes needed? Or is this indicative of a possible bug in the mouse driver? Thanks, -jr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 Available
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 11:14 -0500, Ken Smith wrote: > The 7.0-BETA3 builds are now available. If you would like to download > an ISO image to install from they are available here: > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases//ISO-IMAGES/7.0/ > > (adjust to be your architecture, e.g. amd64, i386, etc.). If you > would like to use cvsup to update an older machine the release tag is > still RELENG_7. It works fine, THANKS! [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> uname -a FreeBSD jihad.izb.knu.ac.kr 7.0-BETA3 FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 #2: Tue Nov 20 05:06:49 KST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> respect, bh -- "It's supposed to be so terrible that even my father won't talk about it." -- Michael Corleone, "Chapter 1", page 24 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
pf(4) using inapropriate timeout values, 6.2-R
Hello, I'm running pf(4) on a 6.2-RELEASE system. The problem occurs when on a TCP connection, one side sends a FIN (by issuing shutdown(SHUT_WR) on the socket), which is then ACK-ed properly. According to pf.conf(5), the connection should then be subject to tcp.closing timeout: tcp.closing The state after the first FIN has been sent. But, after testing, I have discovered that the connection is timeouted after tcp.finwait value: tcp.finwait The state after both FINs have been exchanged and the connec- tion is closed. Some hosts (notably web servers on Solaris) send TCP packets even after closing the connection. Increas- ing tcp.finwait (and possibly tcp.closing) can prevent block- ing of such packets. I'm positively sure it's precisely this value that timeouts this conection (which later on get state mismatches). Default tcp.closing value is quite big (15 minutes), while tcp.finwait ain't, and I have tuned tcp.finwait to a small value due to excesive number of short-lived connections I have running. This happens both with "keep state" and "modulate state". Is it some kind of a known issue? Is there any fix avalaible? I didn't test it on any other system than 6.2-R. -- Jan Srzednicki :: http://wrzask.pl/ "Remember, remember, the fifth of November" -- V for Vendetta ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: amrd disk performance drop after running under high load
Alexey Popov wrote: Hi. Panagiotis Christias wrote: In the "good" case you are getting a much higher interrupt rate but with the data you provided I can't tell where from. You need to run vmstat -i at regular intervals (e.g. every 10 seconds for a minute) during the "good" and "bad" times, since it only provides counters and an average rate over the uptime of the system. Now I'm running 10-process lighttpd and the problem became no so big. I collected interrupt stats and it shows no relation beetween ionterrupts and slowdowns. Here is it: http://83.167.98.162/gprof/intr-graph/ Also I have similiar statistics on mutex profiling and it shows there's no problem in mutexes. http://83.167.98.162/gprof/mtx-graph/mtxgifnew/ I have no idea what else to check. I don't know what this graph is showing me :) When precisely is the system behaving poorly? what is your RAID controller configuration (read ahead/cache/write policy)? I have seen weird/bogus numbers (~100% busy) reported by systat -v when read ahead was enabled on LSI/amr controllers. ** Existing Logical Drive Information By LSI Logic Corp.,USA ** [Note: For SATA-2, 4 and 6 channel controllers, please specify Ch=0 Id=0..15 for specifying physical drive(Ch=channel, Id=Target)] Logical Drive : 0( Adapter: 0 ): Status: OPTIMAL --- SpanDepth :01 RaidLevel: 5 RdAhead : Adaptive Cache: DirectIo StripSz :064KB Stripes : 6 WrPolicy: WriteBack Logical Drive 0 : SpanLevel_0 Disks Chnl Target StartBlock Blocks Physical Target Status -- -- -- -- 0 000x 0x22ec ONLINE 0 010x 0x22ec ONLINE 0 020x 0x22ec ONLINE 0 030x 0x22ec ONLINE 0 040x 0x22ec ONLINE 0 050x 0x22ec ONLINE I tried to run with disabled Read-ahead, but it didn't help. I just ran into this myself, and apparently it can be caused by "Patrol Reads" where the adapter periodically scans the disks to look for media errors. You can turn this off using -stopPR with the megarc port. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
You have 1 new ALERT message
You have 1 new ALERT message Please login to your RegionsNet Online Banking and visit the Message Center section in order to read the message. To Login, please click the link below: [1]Go To RegionsNet Online © 2007 Regions Bank. All rights reserved References 1. http://www.informad.cl/EBanking/logon/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Ivan Voras wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: It's explained in the MUTEX_PROFILING(9) manpage (LOCK_PROFILING(9) on 7.0) cnt_hold The number of times the lock was held and another thread attempted to acquire the lock. cnt_lock The number of times the lock was already held when this point was reached. Interesting... why is the page named in UPPERCASE? :) finstall:~> locate lock_profiling finstall:~> locate LOCK_PROFILING /buildcd/livecd/usr/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9.gz /usr/obj/usr/src/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9.gz /usr/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9.gz /usr/src/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9 Matching the option name I guess. Not sure this is the right thing :) Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Kris Kennaway wrote: > It's explained in the MUTEX_PROFILING(9) manpage (LOCK_PROFILING(9) on 7.0) > > cnt_hold The number of times the lock was held and another >thread attempted to acquire the lock. > > cnt_lock The number of times the lock was already held > when this >point was reached. Interesting... why is the page named in UPPERCASE? :) finstall:~> locate lock_profiling finstall:~> locate LOCK_PROFILING /buildcd/livecd/usr/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9.gz /usr/obj/usr/src/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9.gz /usr/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9.gz /usr/src/share/man/man9/LOCK_PROFILING.9 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Ivan Voras wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: My guess is that you're hitting contention in the TCP send path, but I missed the start of this conversation so I don't know what problems you are seeing. Here it is: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-November/038371.html there's some mutex profiling there. OK, but that is on 6.x and only (I guess) on the 8 core machine. What is needed is at least a comparison of the two machines under identical conditions, and preferably on 7.0. It looks like the most serious issue might be due to lockmgr contention, but on 6.x lockmgr usage is not profiled directly (it only shows up via secondary mutexes). Comparing two 7.0 traces should help to shed more light on the subject. Offtopic: How to you read output from debug.mutex.prof.stats? Is cnt_lock the number of times a lock has been attempted to be acquired but it wasn't available? It's explained in the MUTEX_PROFILING(9) manpage (LOCK_PROFILING(9) on 7.0) cnt_hold The number of times the lock was held and another thread attempted to acquire the lock. cnt_lock The number of times the lock was already held when this point was reached. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Alexey Popov wrote: Hi. Ivan Voras wrote: CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 82.0% system, 0.5% interrupt, 8.0% idle A wild idea that might not help: try reducing kern.hz in loader.conf to something like 100 and see if something significant changes. Now it runs with hz=100, number of context switches became ~ 2 times less, but still there's 90% system CPU load (see attach). System CPU usage doesn't tell you anything by itself, you need to look at how much work the system is actually doing (pages served/second, or whatever). For example, when your kernel is getting more work done, system CPU usage will also be higher. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Kris Kennaway wrote: > My guess is that you're hitting contention in the TCP send path, but I > missed the start of this conversation so I don't know what problems you > are seeing. Here it is: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-November/038371.html there's some mutex profiling there. Offtopic: How to you read output from debug.mutex.prof.stats? Is cnt_lock the number of times a lock has been attempted to be acquired but it wasn't available? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:35:09PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > Some more ideas: How is your disk load (iostat, systat -vm, diskinfo -t) > during the load? You don't use NFS for the web directories, do you? Don't forget about gstat(8), which (if the issue is an I/O bottleneck) may help pinpoint what particular disk device is being utilised too heavily. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Alexey Popov wrote: > Here is it: http://83.167.98.162/gprof/kdump.txt.gz I don't see anything unusual there. Some more ideas: How is your disk load (iostat, systat -vm, diskinfo -t) during the load? You don't use NFS for the web directories, do you? Can you run bonnie++ while the machine is idle (i.e. apache is stopped) just to verify it isn't a stupid problem with the disks or the driver? >> Also, did you try configuring and running pecl-APC for PHP?'s > I'm using eAccelerator. Again, the same soft works good on less-CPU > system and on Linux. So, you pick the CPU out of the motherboard and plug in another one? If not, you can't be sure that some other thing isn't wrong. I know you tried it on Linux, but it might use slightly different commands in the driver that don't trigger the error. I'm very surprised that both 6.x and 7.x behave almost the same on your load: since they are very different in how they support multiple CPU-s, I'd expect a big difference in this case (in favour of 7.x), not a small one. This might point that the problem is not in the OS itself, but maybe in the hardware or in some driver. Many people (including me) have run FreeBSD on machines like yours without such problems, so let's dig further. You don't have WITNESS, INVARIANTS, DIAGNOSTICS or something similar enabled? Can you try a generic SMP kernel (called "SMP" in 6.x; the "GENERIC" in 7.x has SMP by default) and see how it works? Can you disable SMP and try with only one CPU (on the 2xquad machine)? You can do it in loader.conf by setting kern.smp.disabled=1, or perhaps in BIOS. If there's a problem in some hardware or a driver, you'd still get a big load on sys time. You might also want to halt certain logical CPUs in the OS itself (see smp(4) man page) and see if there's a certain relationship between how many CPUs are running and what the sys load is. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Alexey Popov wrote: Hi. Robert Watson wrote: I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: Did you see no change in throughput, or no change in reported CPU use? No significant changes. We should probably take this thread to performance@ and get Kris involved. He may be interested in trying to reproduce your workload in our testbed so we can perform measurements of our own, as well as getting you to provide profiling information. One of the things we'd most like to have are nice potted benchmarks for real-world workloads, as that allows us to easily replay them, perform measurements, optimize, etc. I can provide all profiling or configuration information you ask for. Except I can't provide PHP site source codes. Now I'm in situation that I can't install FreeBSD on all new servers because they are all based on 2xquad-core processors and I can't be sure it would work good. Running mutex profiling for e.g. 1 minute of representative load would be a useful starting point, as well as hwpmc profiling for the same duration. My guess is that you're hitting contention in the TCP send path, but I missed the start of this conversation so I don't know what problems you are seeing. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RELENG_7 jerky mouse and skipping sound (still a problem -BETA3)
On Nov 19, 2007 9:53 AM, Anish Mistry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Anish Mistry wrote: > > On Monday 05 November 2007, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > > > Marc Fonvieille wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:53:47PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > > > >> Anish Mistry wrote: > > > >>> On Thursday 18 October 2007, Marc Fonvieille wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 12:28:30PM -0400, Anish Mistry wrote: > > > > I just updated to RELENG_7 from 6.2 and I'm running into > > > > some really annoying issues with jerky mouse movement and > > > > skipping sound. This seems to be similar to: > > > > Re: SCHED_4BSD in RELENG_7 disturbs workflow > > > > This happens both with 4BSD and ULE. > > > > > > > > I seems to happen when I'm compiling ports and a new > > > > cc/bzip2/sh process fires off (I'm just watching top), I'll > > > > get the skip/freezeup. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Using ULE and UP kernel (i.e. without SMP etc.) helped a bit > > > the things but it's still very annoying to use firefox > > > during ports build. I see this lag/freeze on all boxes I > > > use with 7.0, but it's true that with a fast machine people > > > can ignore the problem, it's less obvious than with a 1GHz > > > box for example. > > > >>> > > > >>> Yeah, I'm still seeing this behavior. Does anyone have > > > >>> suggestions on debugging? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> I did post the solution in this thread. > > > > > > > > It has nothing to do with the mouse. > > > > > > Does the problem persist for you? It's gone for me, even with > > > moused. > > > > Yes, the problem seems to have been fixed. I'm back to > > kern.hz=1000 and removed FULL_PREEMPTION. No skipping. > It looks like I spoke too soon. I've just tried to compile miro and > as it was compiling the boost-python dependency I noticed the problem > again. Switching kern.hz="100" seems to fix the problem. Can any of > the developers in this area reproduce the issue? It's pretty easy to > reproduce on my 1.33Ghz Athlon. > There is an ithread priority inversion bug that might be causing this. The fix for that should be going in shortly. -Kip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
On Nov 19, 2007 2:32 PM, Alexey Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > I have a large pool of web backends (Apache + mod_php5) with > 2 x Xeon 3.2GHz processors and 2 x Xeon 5120 dual-core processors. The > workload is mostly CPU-bound. I'm using 6-STABLE-amd64 and also tried > 7-STABLE. > > Now I'm trying to use new hardware with 2 x Xeon 5320 (quad-core), but > it can not work under the same load as dual-core. It shows up to 80% > system CPU load in top: > > last pid: 3850; load averages: 22.51, 19.75, 12.18 Very high load. Could it be the raid-controller? I had a db-server with horibble performance due to a cheap raid-controller. Moving to a ciss-controller (DL380 G5) solved all my issues. My load decreased 100 fold. -- regards Claus When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentlest gamester is the soonest winner. Shakespeare ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 Available
The 7.0-BETA3 builds are now available. If you would like to download an ISO image to install from they are available here: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases//ISO-IMAGES/7.0/ (adjust to be your architecture, e.g. amd64, i386, etc.). If you would like to use cvsup to update an older machine the release tag is still RELENG_7. What's the best way for me to perform a binary upgrade from 7.0-BETA2? Oops, I should have hit "Get Mail" before asking. I would have seen that Colin already answered my question. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 Available
Ken Smith wrote: The 7.0-BETA3 builds are now available. If you would like to download an ISO image to install from they are available here: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases//ISO-IMAGES/7.0/ (adjust to be your architecture, e.g. amd64, i386, etc.). If you would like to use cvsup to update an older machine the release tag is still RELENG_7. What's the best way for me to perform a binary upgrade from 7.0-BETA2? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RELENG_7 jerky mouse and skipping sound (still a problem -BETA3)
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Anish Mistry wrote: > On Monday 05 November 2007, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > > Marc Fonvieille wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:53:47PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > > >> Anish Mistry wrote: > > >>> On Thursday 18 October 2007, Marc Fonvieille wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 12:28:30PM -0400, Anish Mistry wrote: > > > I just updated to RELENG_7 from 6.2 and I'm running into > > > some really annoying issues with jerky mouse movement and > > > skipping sound. This seems to be similar to: > > > Re: SCHED_4BSD in RELENG_7 disturbs workflow > > > This happens both with 4BSD and ULE. > > > > > > I seems to happen when I'm compiling ports and a new > > > cc/bzip2/sh process fires off (I'm just watching top), I'll > > > get the skip/freezeup. > > > > [...] > > > > Using ULE and UP kernel (i.e. without SMP etc.) helped a bit > > the things but it's still very annoying to use firefox > > during ports build. I see this lag/freeze on all boxes I > > use with 7.0, but it's true that with a fast machine people > > can ignore the problem, it's less obvious than with a 1GHz > > box for example. > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, I'm still seeing this behavior. Does anyone have > > >>> suggestions on debugging? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >> > > >> I did post the solution in this thread. > > > > > > It has nothing to do with the mouse. > > > > Does the problem persist for you? It's gone for me, even with > > moused. > > Yes, the problem seems to have been fixed. I'm back to > kern.hz=1000 and removed FULL_PREEMPTION. No skipping. It looks like I spoke too soon. I've just tried to compile miro and as it was compiling the boost-python dependency I noticed the problem again. Switching kern.hz="100" seems to fix the problem. Can any of the developers in this area reproduce the issue? It's pretty easy to reproduce on my 1.33Ghz Athlon. -- Anish Mistry signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 Available
Ken Smith wrote: > The 7.0-BETA3 builds are now available. If you would like to download > an ISO image to install from they are available here: > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases//ISO-IMAGES/7.0/ > > (adjust to be your architecture, e.g. amd64, i386, etc.). If you > would like to use cvsup to update an older machine the release tag is > still RELENG_7. Due to a communications mix-up, it isn't yet possible to upgrade to 7.0-BETA3 using FreeBSD Update -- the bits are being assembled as I type this and binary upgrading to 7.0-BETA3 should work by the end of the day. For those of you who didn't read my earlier announcement and have no idea what I'm talking about, upgrading instructions are at http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2007-11-11-freebsd-major-version-upgrade.html for upgrading from 6.x to 7.0-BETA3, and at http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2007-11-10-freebsd-minor-version-upgrade.html for upgrading from 7.0-BETA1.5 or 7.0-BETA2 to 7.0-BETA3. Colin Percival FreeBSD Security Officer & FreeBSD Update wrangler ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, What version of apache do you use and what are: StartServers MinSpareServers MaxSpareServers MaxClients KeepAliveTimeout settings in both configurations? Best Regards Alexey Popov wrote: > Hi. > > I have a large pool of web backends (Apache + mod_php5) with > 2 x Xeon 3.2GHz processors and 2 x Xeon 5120 dual-core processors. The > workload is mostly CPU-bound. I'm using 6-STABLE-amd64 and also tried > 7-STABLE. > > Now I'm trying to use new hardware with 2 x Xeon 5320 (quad-core), but > it can not work under the same load as dual-core. It shows up to 80% > system CPU load in top: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHQblfxJBWvpalMpkRAgTQAJ4uy8qhmpCVWevAI0LSYXPrXiIUSQCeNE8y +dkavLoDzqrILkqVGZNZZDM= =xI6R -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Hi. Robert Watson wrote: I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: Did you see no change in throughput, or no change in reported CPU use? No significant changes. We should probably take this thread to performance@ and get Kris involved. He may be interested in trying to reproduce your workload in our testbed so we can perform measurements of our own, as well as getting you to provide profiling information. One of the things we'd most like to have are nice potted benchmarks for real-world workloads, as that allows us to easily replay them, perform measurements, optimize, etc. I can provide all profiling or configuration information you ask for. Except I can't provide PHP site source codes. Now I'm in situation that I can't install FreeBSD on all new servers because they are all based on 2xquad-core processors and I can't be sure it would work good. With best regards, Alexey Popov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
FreeBSD 7.0-BETA3 Available
The 7.0-BETA3 builds are now available. If you would like to download an ISO image to install from they are available here: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases//ISO-IMAGES/7.0/ (adjust to be your architecture, e.g. amd64, i386, etc.). If you would like to use cvsup to update an older machine the release tag is still RELENG_7. Checksums for the ISO files: MD5 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-bootonly.iso) = d3727590cdc07bc00ed4b8c70d882ffc MD5 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-disc1.iso) = f747c3e8c38f4b2486a28927120918b9 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-disc2.iso) = 8be4203cdb7c9c886fab9fe825586532 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-docs.iso) = 036c8529639f42667fb13b168bb62fd7 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-livefs.iso) = 4c132e37b3791d9c3667a26893ef164a MD5 (7.0-BETA3-i386-bootonly.iso) = 87d311072e75d83ec6f3fd757f23c5bb MD5 (7.0-BETA3-i386-disc1.iso) = e1f1fb8a233b4e48b9b57064e2287fb0 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-i386-disc2.iso) = 710482b33f37a4fecd247faaa0b0f76c MD5 (7.0-BETA3-i386-docs.iso) = 8e420fe99237d8c9d54f6afa079558b5 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-i386-livefs.iso) = 3ce12b63ed61d733b20c7432c00896e6 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-bootonly.iso) = 01d13c5ba7b8e939d717a08f43b160b0 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-disc1.iso) = 566ac5bc9bbe38be9df6eeed297444e8 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-disc2.iso) = 45f0045e057e5d76dc11598467a6745e MD5 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-docs.iso) = 3dd593b39c81c635b1404701fc042031 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-livefs.iso) = d62fee94d11be9bce1929f4e006d8865 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-pc98-bootonly.iso) = 4f03a75e3c5df7efc3868c300b48ba17 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-pc98-disc1.iso) = d94e1adff058e9b11160014d78444d2c MD5 (7.0-BETA3-pc98-livefs.iso) = 025bbc6400724ddfc49b5ce0860d2394 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-bootonly.iso) = bfd4d07be776811e50d7706bbdc49518 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-disc1.iso) = b44fcac04742856f9af5f54eddac46e9 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-disc2.iso) = 1721b82f3ae2114b3c1e345c97e75f27 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-docs.iso) = 7e8a460ea6bf432d8bdffe098f87bed7 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-bootonly.iso) = 4bde71a072c042a9e5617d48188eace4 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-disc1.iso) = f3ffc1caf127d81e72bdaa807b1c4de8 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-disc2.iso) = 807c61cac4bda259c7f3513d3f9ae781 MD5 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-docs.iso) = 92b55a7ed6f816530eb8f26422e3d0be SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-bootonly.iso) = 50a90064b6bddc14ec4c9fd40ae9d0713221a76b7fd7cd3355a3f09319487ede SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-disc1.iso) = 55c80f76039996406773e87b909b472693a8d93c9cdc880fb4516b219236040e SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-disc2.iso) = 2f58909abf46b114ed49bf47d8e7d4d66c0c524c617f116f3ce5a12976d0285c SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-docs.iso) = ef4a6cad6399c94bca3fdb3bb5243f8e565554955f4e94b0068e7214d3aa379b SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-amd64-livefs.iso) = 64d61b795bb3c358e38f61cc44ef70ea1abd6b3cdc710f79b9da3acf9485ad51 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-i386-bootonly.iso) = e3895aa4d9570634465ba7132489b45dabe19cf44638a97f14f577b6a465690b SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-i386-disc1.iso) = 082e00e6c8142e0c539f128311968fef443ac930702e567918a0dd758c09711f SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-i386-disc2.iso) = 70b66b100618ccab7a91c96c3312aa443f3ff904a7b290fecbc5bef3a35fc248 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-i386-docs.iso) = 9bd6c09b8abd3f6e7243c3847168e74ad27e0e364b810ea19dedc10a1410af8c SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-i386-livefs.iso) = 177df8430a19b44f49b3dcc9be424bf0b74b270baf953f124633ba4ecab2d690 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-bootonly.iso) = d25436d7be92b262253ce127b1e752c097f9cc38561f78245f70e879b3af976e SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-disc1.iso) = 90c2b3611daf76000e7608672797235f234e185f09fa36a1f13738361df0aeb8 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-disc2.iso) = 6d5a3bbdd9808cf8efa9e3532ed386c604151a6f071d85c751c260442f3fee52 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-docs.iso) = 86d823f7f555635ccd4e91af31ec68e35d5dc893fab04027e0f764911e73b5d8 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-ia64-livefs.iso) = 2f8b156ffdc068eb09aa37742213e24d417df6387e903ed699ebac39ba61ba66 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-pc98-bootonly.iso) = 4758018dca3ecebea0dc5d4b7c16ae4a4d2da668cb1ad0a5ab2363c890888f51 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-pc98-disc1.iso) = d43a77a86c1294425e6f3504a5dd14d42f581f800374ab2f1e0dca548db43abb SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-pc98-livefs.iso) = 33bf52a412c95983361307a6dc553f32d8e5be7d0bc90199ef083b2e8caebb9c SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-bootonly.iso) = 7d4b08c145c3c3b98ae603d6e2bb34788f8556c3027de041810a32b72b79dfe4 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-disc1.iso) = 8affc16a226d98166f9fa7b8b48965c537b187a9fb13b84502a524746af4b9ac SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-disc2.iso) = ca4ac30eb3a3241506a76cc3ad4ff9658f37b28e7bd0d6dc6f64e5938bef3be2 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-powerpc-docs.iso) = 2603429f005d31623f59d47f2b198ef51fe6d300441dc6651be462d3359cc2db SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-bootonly.iso) = 5db551ed17c9d075c65048128478580e9feb95a83440bc9391da4eb514ba6783 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-disc1.iso) = 220cac1aa26537521f67333a4ece03ab2edf87b443142276ca8d28b7da162c44 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-disc2.iso) = 15726eef5ecb1b4177644aa3717ee3736c13bb6dc372d7913fe1784496bb2371 SHA256 (7.0-BETA3-sparc64-docs.iso) = a32dda230c6fb654d906d48c8ad5c5ca5a40ea176939f320b614b6b1df1957c3 -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | [EMAIL PROTECTED] there, funny things ar
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Hi. Ivan Voras wrote: last pid: 5266; load averages: 24.67, 22.65, 17.44 up 0+03:56:38 121 processes: 41 running, 62 sleeping, 18 waiting CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 82.0% system, 0.5% interrupt, 8.0% idle This is really unusual - the number of processes is not that high, but if I'm reading the line from systat correctly, you have unusually many context switches: r p d s w Csw Trp Sys Int Sof Fltcow 16839 total 27 1 39 137k 3390 33k 2490 313 2519 2519 zfod sio0 irq4 nginx or similar asynchronous web servers should reduce inter-process contention context switches dramatically, but you say that it didn't work as such so the problem might be somewhere else. Try sending a 10-second or so output from vmstat to confirm this problem. Yes, there's really many context switches: %vmstat 1 procs memory page disk faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi pofr sr mf0 in sy cs us sy id 23 1 0 615284 3581456 15980 0 0 0 15964 0 0 1414 58211 115230 25 60 15 24 0 0 631668 3564976 9940 0 0 0 5793 0 0 664 30036 158059 11 79 10 20 0 0 655220 3545516 22146 0 0 0 16731 0 0 1992 77638 116627 31 65 4 23 0 0 622452 3579700 18248 0 0 0 27451 0 0 1839 80646 115798 38 59 3 15 9 0 614260 3587484 4795 0 0 0 6765 0 0 352 23938 159993 6 83 11 21 0 0 625524 3567948 10154 0 0 0 5308 0 0 653 32718 159119 11 81 8 13 3 0 627572 3571924 15266 0 0 0 16278 0 0 1031 50321 142111 20 69 11 21 0 0 605044 3591860 9008 0 0 0 14021 0 0 873 42083 160441 13 79 8 19 1 0 611188 3593404 7498 0 0 0 7920 0 0 489 30012 158176 10 77 13 24 0 0 610164 3592360 5855 0 0 0 5602 0 0 666 26627 162937 8 81 11 20 3 0 622452 3587456 6372 0 0 0 5144 0 0 362 23705 161257 10 81 10 ^C % If you can, attach a ktrace(1) to one of the httpd processes that consumes CPU, and send the processed kdump output. Here is it: http://83.167.98.162/gprof/kdump.txt.gz Also, did you try configuring and running pecl-APC for PHP?'s I'm using eAccelerator. Again, the same soft works good on less-CPU system and on Linux. With best regards, Alexey Popov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Popov wrote: Robert Watson wrote: FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of cores, and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I see you're trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 beta instead? Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the 7.0 kernel rather than "options SCHED_4BSD". I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: Did you see no change in throughput, or no change in reported CPU use? We should probably take this thread to performance@ and get Kris involved. He may be interested in trying to reproduce your workload in our testbed so we can perform measurements of our own, as well as getting you to provide profiling information. One of the things we'd most like to have are nice potted benchmarks for real-world workloads, as that allows us to easily replay them, perform measurements, optimize, etc. Thanks, Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge last pid: 1063; load averages: 22.75, 13.76, 6.31up 0+00:07:24 17:53:49 56 processes: 33 running, 23 sleeping CPU states: 26.5% user, 0.0% nice, 68.1% system, 0.3% interrupt, 5.1% idle Mem: 365M Active, 20M Inact, 102M Wired, 664K Cache, 46M Buf, 3419M Free Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 1019 www 1 1010 101M 51244K RUN6 0:37 26.86% httpd 1040 www 1 -40 92476K 42956K RUN1 0:36 26.76% httpd 1004 www 1 -40 92476K 42864K RUN4 0:38 25.98% httpd 1018 www 1 1010 91452K 41736K CPU3 3 0:37 25.68% httpd 1000 www 1 1010 92476K 42544K RUN0 0:36 25.29% httpd 1026 www 1 1010 93500K 39900K CPU0 0 0:35 25.20% httpd 1021 www 1 1010 101M 49432K RUN4 0:37 25.10% httpd 1024 www 1 1010 93500K 44416K RUN5 0:37 25.10% httpd 1020 www 1 1010 94524K 43684K RUN0 0:37 25.00% httpd 1030 www 1 1010 96576K 46004K RUN3 0:36 25.00% httpd 1031 www 1 1010 101M 50956K RUN3 0:37 24.66% httpd 1025 www 1 1010 94524K 43880K RUN5 0:36 24.56% httpd 1041 www 1 1010 92476K 41792K RUN2 0:36 24.56% httpd 1022 www 1 1010 101M 48932K RUN5 0:36 24.27% httpd With best regards, Alexey Popov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:54:32 +0100, Alexey Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Robert Watson wrote: FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of cores, and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I see you're trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 beta instead? Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the 7.0 kernel rather than "options SCHED_4BSD". I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: last pid: 1063; load averages: 22.75, 13.76, 6.31up 0+00:07:24 17:53:49 56 processes: 33 running, 23 sleeping CPU states: 26.5% user, 0.0% nice, 68.1% system, 0.3% interrupt, 5.1% idle Mem: 365M Active, 20M Inact, 102M Wired, 664K Cache, 46M Buf, 3419M Free Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 1019 www 1 1010 101M 51244K RUN6 0:37 26.86% httpd 1040 www 1 -40 92476K 42956K RUN1 0:36 26.76% httpd 1004 www 1 -40 92476K 42864K RUN4 0:38 25.98% httpd 1018 www 1 1010 91452K 41736K CPU3 3 0:37 25.68% httpd 1000 www 1 1010 92476K 42544K RUN0 0:36 25.29% httpd 1026 www 1 1010 93500K 39900K CPU0 0 0:35 25.20% httpd 1021 www 1 1010 101M 49432K RUN4 0:37 25.10% httpd 1024 www 1 1010 93500K 44416K RUN5 0:37 25.10% httpd 1020 www 1 1010 94524K 43684K RUN0 0:37 25.00% httpd 1030 www 1 1010 96576K 46004K RUN3 0:36 25.00% httpd 1031 www 1 1010 101M 50956K RUN3 0:37 24.66% httpd 1025 www 1 1010 94524K 43880K RUN5 0:36 24.56% httpd 1041 www 1 1010 92476K 41792K RUN2 0:36 24.56% httpd 1022 www 1 1010 101M 48932K RUN5 0:36 24.27% httpd You have a lot of free memory. Maybe you can wait a little to let it fill the cache or let it use more buf's. This could explain that the system is spending a lot if time in 'system'. 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: No kernel messages displayed during boot
Jeremy> Hmm, it looks as if the system doesn't have any indication of what Jeremy> the local console is. I would expect to see a "consolectl" listed Jeremy> under the "Configured:" section. See below for some of the output Jeremy> from our systems... Hi Jeremy, Thanks for your advice, I've started to dig deeper and deeper until I found that it was boot0 loader's fault. Strange as it sounds, it is the only plausible explanation I can think of, because of the all strange effects I've encountered. First, the problem went away when I've replaced /boot/loader with a freshly compiled one. But the interesting part was, that the change to the new loader caused a prompt for the location of /boot/loader on the next reboot (note, no -a in loader.conf!). Next reboots went just fine. The interesting stuff began when I reverted the loader back, and it worked - but again, first time it prompted the input, and worked afterwards. This pattern with flipping old and new loaders back and forth actually was reproducible, and most fun of it all, also under qemu, which I used to save time and used the same /dev/ad4 my system lives on, but in read-only mode. The fact that that action chain actually presisted between reboots in qemu on a read-only device -- I don't know, I simply have no explanation to this. As a last resort, I've re-run boot0cfg -B , and voila, everything started worked fine, and the loader prompt effect disappeared. I'm thinking that something corrupted my MBR in such a nasty way that some boot0's memory, possibly boot flags word (-a, -D etc boot_ flags found in loader.conf) , thought of having been initialized to zero, was not. I tried to look at the source of boot0, but couldn't figure out first if that's an issue here at all, and second, if that behavior would be desirable (after all, the code must be 512 bytes max). Nevertheless, that effect was really spooky - imagine a stray bit in MBR turns off whole console logging! And at last - the machine crashed when I tried to write on msdosfs mounted on /dev/md0. Apparently it wrote something it shouldn't in the MBR. And I tried to write on msdosfs while trying to figure out if my old msdosfs kernel PR #47628 is still actual under 6.2. If anyone's willing to try that, (the PR has perl script attached, http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=47628), you're very welcome. Just back up your MBR first :) -- Sincerely, Dmitry Karasik ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Hi. Ivan Voras wrote: CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 82.0% system, 0.5% interrupt, 8.0% idle A wild idea that might not help: try reducing kern.hz in loader.conf to something like 100 and see if something significant changes. Now it runs with hz=100, number of context switches became ~ 2 times less, but still there's 90% system CPU load (see attach). With best regards, Alexey Popov 1 usersLoad 16.36 12.24 6.14 Nov 19 18:08 Mem:KBREALVIRTUAL VN PAGER SWAP PAGER Tot Share TotShareFree in out in out Act 366988 16952 83428837248 3515624 count 1 All 423228 18472 508956841144 pages 4 Proc:Interrupts r p d s w Csw Trp Sys Int Sof Flt 1 cow3917 total 31 24 98k 35k 95k 2315 100 29k 29919 zfodsio0 irq4 ozfod ata0 irq14 48.6%Sys 1.0%Intr 49.5%User 0.0%Nice 1.0%Idle%ozfod 5 mfi0 irq18 ||||||||||| daefr uhci0 uhci +> 1709 prcfr 200 cpu0: time 4 dtbuf23140 totfr 2311 em0 irq256 Namei Name-cache Dir-cache10 desvn react 200 cpu2: time Callshits %hits % 1494 numvn pdwak 200 cpu3: time 147517 147514 100 158 frevn pdpgs 200 cpu1: time intrn 200 cpu4: time Disks mfid0106840 wire200 cpu7: time KB/t 20.20355720 act 201 cpu5: time tps 5 21248 inact 200 cpu6: time MB/s 0.10 1228 cache %busy 1 3514792 free 65056 buf ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: garbled gjournal messages in dmesg with 7.0-BETA3
Toomas Aas wrote: kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3G EcOoMn_tJaOiUnRsN AdLa:t aB.IO kernel: _GFELOUMS_HJ OnUoRtN AsLu:p pJoorutrenda lb y 3a3a7c2d819s325.22 Looking more closely at this 'garbage' I just noticed that this is actually two messages 'mixed' together. If you read skipping one letter, the first line has: aacd1s3 contains data. GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO and the second line has: _FLUSH not supported by aacd1s2. GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522 Interesting children's cryptography :) -- Toomas Aas ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Hi Robert Watson wrote: FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of cores, and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I see you're trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 beta instead? Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the 7.0 kernel rather than "options SCHED_4BSD". I tried SCHED_ULE, but got no difference: last pid: 1063; load averages: 22.75, 13.76, 6.31up 0+00:07:24 17:53:49 56 processes: 33 running, 23 sleeping CPU states: 26.5% user, 0.0% nice, 68.1% system, 0.3% interrupt, 5.1% idle Mem: 365M Active, 20M Inact, 102M Wired, 664K Cache, 46M Buf, 3419M Free Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 1019 www 1 1010 101M 51244K RUN6 0:37 26.86% httpd 1040 www 1 -40 92476K 42956K RUN1 0:36 26.76% httpd 1004 www 1 -40 92476K 42864K RUN4 0:38 25.98% httpd 1018 www 1 1010 91452K 41736K CPU3 3 0:37 25.68% httpd 1000 www 1 1010 92476K 42544K RUN0 0:36 25.29% httpd 1026 www 1 1010 93500K 39900K CPU0 0 0:35 25.20% httpd 1021 www 1 1010 101M 49432K RUN4 0:37 25.10% httpd 1024 www 1 1010 93500K 44416K RUN5 0:37 25.10% httpd 1020 www 1 1010 94524K 43684K RUN0 0:37 25.00% httpd 1030 www 1 1010 96576K 46004K RUN3 0:36 25.00% httpd 1031 www 1 1010 101M 50956K RUN3 0:37 24.66% httpd 1025 www 1 1010 94524K 43880K RUN5 0:36 24.56% httpd 1041 www 1 1010 92476K 41792K RUN2 0:36 24.56% httpd 1022 www 1 1010 101M 48932K RUN5 0:36 24.27% httpd With best regards, Alexey Popov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Alexey Popov wrote: > CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 82.0% system, 0.5% interrupt, 8.0% > idle A wild idea that might not help: try reducing kern.hz in loader.conf to something like 100 and see if something significant changes. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: No kernel messages displayed during boot
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 09:24:01AM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
> Jeremy> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:01:59PM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
> >> I've re-run 'make installworld' and 'make installkernel' (as I had
> >> leftovers from recent buildworld), - didn't help. I've tried to power
> >> down the machine (suspecied video card trouble), I've resetted BIOS,
> >> I've even disabled com port in BIOS (because the behavior looks like
> >> booting on serial console) -- nothing, absolutely nothing changes it.
>
> Jeremy> conscontrol(8) might help here ("conscontrol list"). Also worth
> Jeremy> looking at is sysctl kern.console.
>
> Hello Jeremy,
>
> Thanks, at least this is a hint. That shows on my system:
>
> $ conscontrol list
> Configured:
> Available:
> Muting: off
Hmm, it looks as if the system doesn't have any indication of what the
local console is. I would expect to see a "consolectl" listed under
the "Configured:" section. See below for some of the output from our
systems...
> and sysctl kern.console is / (not that I know what that means).
I believe the sysctl is a comma-delimited list of what consoles are
configured and available/unused. The "/" splits what's a configured
console and what's available/unused. I bet conscontrol(8) just parses
the sysctl output, but I'd have to look at the code.
> $ conscontrol add /dev/console
> conscontrol: could not add console as a console: Device not configured
> $ conscontrol add /dev/consolectl
> conscontrol: could not add consolectl as a console: Device not configured
>
> Is that the expected behavior? What else I might try?
I'm betting that's not expected behaviour. :-) It seems to indicate
the system has no knowledge of what the system console is.
Here's some data for comparison:
Our RELENG_6 systems which use serial console, and have a /boot.config
of -S115200 -Dh on them show the following:
eos# conscontrol list
Configured: ttyd0,consolectl
Available: ttyd0,consolectl
Muting: off
eos# sysctl kern.console
kern.console: ttyd0,consolectl,/ttyd0,consolectl,
And a RELENG_7 box with serial console (same /boot.config as above):
northstar# conscontrol list
Configured: ttyd0,consolectl,gdb
Available: consolectl,gdb,ttyd0
Muting: off
northstar# sysctl kern.console
kern.console: ttyd0,consolectl,gdb,/consolectl,gdb,ttyd0,
A RELENG_7 box with no serial console (no /boot.config):
icarus# conscontrol list
Configured: consolectl
Available: consolectl,gdb,ttyd0
Muting: off
icarus# sysctl kern.console
kern.console: consolectl,/consolectl,gdb,ttyd0,
--
| Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Alexey Popov wrote: > last pid: 5266; load averages: 24.67, 22.65, 17.44 up 0+03:56:38 > 17:09:37 > 121 processes: 41 running, 62 sleeping, 18 waiting > CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 82.0% system, 0.5% interrupt, 8.0% > idle > Mem: 439M Active, 27M Inact, 80M Wired, 108K Cache, 58M Buf, 3341M Free > Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > 5090 www-40 96572K 49464K RUN5 2:59 23.39% httpd > 3748 www-40 96172K 50060K RUN4 14:21 23.19% httpd > 5092 www-40 96412K 48060K RUN4 2:57 23.19% httpd > 5095 www-40 98148K 50688K RUN5 2:57 22.75% httpd > 5088 www-40 96664K 49120K RUN4 3:02 22.56% httpd This is really unusual - the number of processes is not that high, but if I'm reading the line from systat correctly, you have unusually many context switches: r p d s w Csw Trp Sys Int Sof Fltcow 16839 total 27 1 39 137k 3390 33k 2490 313 2519 2519 zfod sio0 irq4 nginx or similar asynchronous web servers should reduce inter-process contention context switches dramatically, but you say that it didn't work as such so the problem might be somewhere else. Try sending a 10-second or so output from vmstat to confirm this problem. If you can, attach a ktrace(1) to one of the httpd processes that consumes CPU, and send the processed kdump output. Also, did you try configuring and running pecl-APC for PHP? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Hi. Robert Watson wrote: Also I faced the same problem moving heavily loaded MySQL-server to new hardware. That time I thought that the problem is in the mysql-server itself and I had to install Linux. What can I do to make FreeBSD run faster on many-CPU systems??? Have you configured libmap.conf to force MySQL to use libthr instead of libpthread? libpthread is known to have serious performance bottlenecks for MySQL as compared to libthr. I'm always using libthr with MySQL on 6-STABLE and it really helps. But that time with MySQL (and this time with Apache) the bottleneck was somewhere else. FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of cores, and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I see you're trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 beta instead? Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the 7.0 kernel rather than "options SCHED_4BSD". I tried 7-BETA with SHED_4BSD and id did not help. Now I'll try SHED_ULE, thanks. With best regards, Alexey Popov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: garbled gjournal messages in dmesg with 7.0-BETA3
Toomas Aas wrote: > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains data. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains journal. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s2 clean. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3 contains data. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3 contains journal. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s3 clean. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO_FLUSH not supported by aacd1s2. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO_FLUSH not supported by aacd1s3. > kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 514080 > kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 42443730 > > Now I updated RELENG_7 today (20071119), and upon rebooting there are some > garbled messages: > > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains data. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains journal. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s2 clean. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3G EcOoMn_tJaOiUnRsN AdLa:t > aB.IO > kernel: _GFELOUMS_HJ OnUoRtN AsLu:p pJoorutrenda lb y 3a3a7c2d819s325.22 > kernel: : aacd1s3 contains journal. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s3 clean. > kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO_FLUSH not supported by aacd1s3. > kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 514080 > kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 42443730 Both sets of messages are exactly identical, except that in the second set, a few parts got interleaved. Try to copy the garbled parts and delete every second character, then you can recognize it. It's a known problem, but it's not trivial to solve in a generic and efficient way. > The filesystem on aacd1s3.journal was mounted successfully and files seem > to be intact, (but I haven't really verified all the files). Don't worry, your file systems are OK. It's just a display problem. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "To this day, many C programmers believe that 'strong typing' just means pounding extra hard on the keyboard." -- Peter van der Linden ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Hi. Ivan Voras wrote: I have a large pool of web backends (Apache + mod_php5) with 2 x Xeon 3.2GHz processors and 2 x Xeon 5120 dual-core processors. The workload is mostly CPU-bound. I'm using 6-STABLE-amd64 and also tried 7-STABLE. If you haven't tried mod_fcgid, give it a try - it can dramatically benefit PHP applications. And with mod_fcgid, you can use apache with a multi-threaded MPM (i.e. worker-mpm). We tried to run php + nginx via fastcgi interface without apache at all, but improvement was too little (~10% more request per second) to abandon the advantages of apache. Now I'm trying to use new hardware with 2 x Xeon 5320 (quad-core), but it can not work under the same load as dual-core. It shows up to 80% system CPU load in top: On what version of FreeBSD is this? If it's 6-STABLE, this might be expected. I have almost identical results on 6-STABLE and 7-STABLE. Maybe 7-STABLE performs a little better. CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 79.9% system, 1.2% interrupt, 9.5% idle Can you try hitting "S" to see if a kernel process is gobbling up CPU time? There's no such a process: last pid: 5266; load averages: 24.67, 22.65, 17.44 up 0+03:56:38 17:09:37 121 processes: 41 running, 62 sleeping, 18 waiting CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 82.0% system, 0.5% interrupt, 8.0% idle Mem: 439M Active, 27M Inact, 80M Wired, 108K Cache, 58M Buf, 3341M Free Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 5090 www-40 96572K 49464K RUN5 2:59 23.39% httpd 3748 www-40 96172K 50060K RUN4 14:21 23.19% httpd 5092 www-40 96412K 48060K RUN4 2:57 23.19% httpd 5095 www-40 98148K 50688K RUN5 2:57 22.75% httpd 5088 www-40 96664K 49120K RUN4 3:02 22.56% httpd 5098 www-40 97404K 49864K RUN3 2:57 22.56% httpd 5106 www 1180 97908K 49972K CPU7 6 2:57 22.51% httpd 5084 www-40 96012K 48164K RUN5 3:01 22.46% httpd 5081 www-40 96636K 49700K RUN0 3:01 22.36% httpd 5109 www-40 96844K 49188K RUN3 2:51 22.36% httpd 5108 www-40 95808K 47508K RUN5 3:00 22.31% httpd 5085 www-40 98244K 49560K RUN4 2:58 21.88% httpd 5104 www-40 96836K 48956K CPU5 5 2:55 21.88% httpd 5086 www 1180 99140K 51264K CPU0 3 3:00 21.78% httpd 5111 www-40 96360K 48532K RUN0 2:56 21.78% httpd 5105 www-40 96364K 47356K RUN0 2:58 21.73% httpd 5099 www-40 9K 47156K RUN4 2:55 21.73% httpd 5096 www-40 96004K 48324K RUN4 2:56 21.68% httpd 5083 www 1170 97712K 50344K RUN2 3:03 21.63% httpd 5094 www 1180 97196K 49348K CPU3 6 2:56 21.58% httpd 5103 www-40 96040K 48808K RUN4 2:58 21.48% httpd 5089 www 1180 96084K 47808K CPU2 4 2:59 21.34% httpd 5082 www 1170 96412K 48520K CPU6 5 3:00 21.29% httpd 5107 www-40 98172K 50332K RUN4 2:55 21.29% httpd 5091 www-40 97460K 49504K RUN0 2:56 20.95% httpd 5100 www-40 97188K 49400K RUN4 2:56 20.65% httpd 5110 www-40 95168K 47436K RUN5 2:59 20.56% httpd 5087 www 1160 98432K 51172K CPU4 5 2:55 20.31% httpd 5097 www-40 96428K 49124K RUN4 2:59 20.21% httpd 5102 www 1170 96344K 48512K CPU3 4 3:01 19.82% httpd 5093 www-40 96512K 49948K RUN4 2:55 19.82% httpd 5101 www-40 96012K 48968K RUN3 3:01 19.48% httpd 10 root 171 52 0K16K RUN7 174:56 7.86% idle: cpu7 12 root 171 52 0K16K RUN5 174:44 7.86% idle: cpu5 14 root 171 52 0K16K RUN3 175:04 7.62% idle: cpu3 Here's the output from 2xdual-core backend running under the same load and with the same software: CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 0.0% idle This line is bogus - where is the load? Sorry, probably it was my fault in copy&past. last pid: 54690; load averages: 3.47, 4.89, 5.18 up 42+02:07:51 17:00:00 47 processes: 3 running, 43 sleeping, 1 zombie CPU states: 56.0% user, 0.0% nice, 16.7% system, 1.6% interrupt, 25.7% idle Mem: 2268M Active, 416M Inact, 277M Wired, 186M Cache, 214M Buf, 664M Free Swap: 2048M Total, 1408K Used, 2047M Free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 54681 www 1 1060 96916K 47792K CPU3 0 0:10 33.45% httpd 54652 www 1 200 97716K 48144K lockf 1 0:24 31.61% httpd 54680 www 1 1060 96416K 46832K select 1 0:10 31.37% httpd 54686 www 1 200 97640K 45604K lockf 1 0:04 31.13% httpd 54651 www 1 1040 96552K 46924K CPU1 1 0:25 29.50% httpd 54685 www 1 1070 99124K 47300K select 3
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Alexey Popov wrote: I tried Linux and it works much better than old (2 x dual-core) backends. It handles 2 times more requests than FreeBSD on the old backends. So there's a real scalability problem in FreeBSD. The more processors it have the more CPU time it consumes. Also I faced the same problem moving heavily loaded MySQL-server to new hardware. That time I thought that the problem is in the mysql-server itself and I had to install Linux. See in attach: mutex statistics for quad-core system and dmesg and vmstat for dual- and quad-core systems. What can I do to make FreeBSD run faster on many-CPU systems??? Have you configured libmap.conf to force MySQL to use libthr instead of libpthread? libpthread is known to have serious performance bottlenecks for MySQL as compared to libthr. FreeBSD 7 contains significant optimization for increased numbers of cores, and is where a lot of the work optimizing MySQL has ended up. I see you're trying out a 6.3 beta, any chance you could try out a 7.0 beta instead? Also, consider switching to "options SCHED_ULE" in the 7.0 kernel rather than "options SCHED_4BSD". Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: garbled gjournal messages in dmesg with 7.0-BETA3
Forgot to mention, I'm running amd64. -- Toomas Aas ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD
Alexey Popov wrote: > Hi. > > I have a large pool of web backends (Apache + mod_php5) with > 2 x Xeon 3.2GHz processors and 2 x Xeon 5120 dual-core processors. The > workload is mostly CPU-bound. I'm using 6-STABLE-amd64 and also tried > 7-STABLE. If you haven't tried mod_fcgid, give it a try - it can dramatically benefit PHP applications. And with mod_fcgid, you can use apache with a multi-threaded MPM (i.e. worker-mpm). > Now I'm trying to use new hardware with 2 x Xeon 5320 (quad-core), but > it can not work under the same load as dual-core. It shows up to 80% > system CPU load in top: On what version of FreeBSD is this? If it's 6-STABLE, this might be expected. > CPU states: 9.5% user, 0.0% nice, 79.9% system, 1.2% interrupt, 9.5% > idle Can you try hitting "S" to see if a kernel process is gobbling up CPU time? > Here's the output from 2xdual-core backend running under the same load > and with the same software: > CPU states: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 0.0% > idle This line is bogus - where is the load? > What can I do to make FreeBSD run faster on many-CPU systems??? Except for trying 7-STABLE, there's not much you can do. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: panic: rtfree - any work done currently on this?
On 19/11/2007, Stefan Lambrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Ivan Voras wrote: > > Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I wonder if any work is done on > >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=117913 > >> if it is I'll be happy to test patches and/or suggestions or provide > >> access to a box for debugging. > >> > > > > Last I've heard about it is that a fix was committed to 7-CURRENT. > > > This is different issue (or at least on different place) as the one that > was discussed before 5-6 months. You are correct, I was triggered too soon. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
garbled gjournal messages in dmesg with 7.0-BETA3
Hello! I have an IBM System x3400 machine with IBM ServeRAID 8k controller. There are three RAID1 volumes on the controller, which the OS sees as aacd0, aacd1 and aacd2. aacd1 contains three slices, aacd1s1 is simple UFS2, aacd1s2 and aacd1s3 are using UFS2 with gjournal. When I was using RELENG_7 from 20071112, there were following messages during booting regarding the gjournal: kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains data. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains journal. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s2 clean. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3 contains data. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3 contains journal. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s3 clean. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO_FLUSH not supported by aacd1s2. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO_FLUSH not supported by aacd1s3. kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 514080 kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 42443730 Now I updated RELENG_7 today (20071119), and upon rebooting there are some garbled messages: kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains data. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 161627211: aacd1s2 contains journal. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s2 clean. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal 3372893522: aacd1s3G EcOoMn_tJaOiUnRsN AdLa:t aB.IO kernel: _GFELOUMS_HJ OnUoRtN AsLu:p pJoorutrenda lb y 3a3a7c2d819s325.22 kernel: : aacd1s3 contains journal. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: Journal aacd1s3 clean. kernel: GEOM_JOURNAL: BIO_FLUSH not supported by aacd1s3. kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 514080 kernel: WARNING: Expected rawoffset 0, found 42443730 The filesystem on aacd1s3.journal was mounted successfully and files seem to be intact, (but I haven't really verified all the files). This doesn't happen on every reboot, but it did happen on 2 tries out of 10. Before today's updating of RELENG_7 the machine had been rebooted 14 times and the problem had never happened. Has anyone else seen something like this? What more can I do to maybe get some useful information for developers? -- Toomas Aas ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: panic: rtfree - any work done currently on this?
Ivan Voras wrote: Per olof Ljungmark wrote: Hi, I wonder if any work is done on http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=117913 if it is I'll be happy to test patches and/or suggestions or provide access to a box for debugging. Last I've heard about it is that a fix was committed to 7-CURRENT. Then I think something else was fixed - the issues we see still exists as of yesterday's sources. Thanks, ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: panic: rtfree - any work done currently on this?
Hi, Ivan Voras wrote: Per olof Ljungmark wrote: Hi, I wonder if any work is done on http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=117913 if it is I'll be happy to test patches and/or suggestions or provide access to a box for debugging. Last I've heard about it is that a fix was committed to 7-CURRENT. This is different issue (or at least on different place) as the one that was discussed before 5-6 months. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: No kernel messages displayed during boot
Hi Dmitry, Sorry then, probably my guess was wrong, but there's still a chance that it was actually rerunning 'mergemaster' that fixed my system. :) As I did a major upgrade, 'make delete-old-libs' did a lot of work for me (too much to memorize). -- AngryWolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Monday 19 November 2007 09.25.56 Dmitry Karasik wrote: > Hi AngryWolf! > > AngryWolf> Hi, I had the exact same problem after I upgraded to 7.0-BETA2, > AngryWolf> and the problem seemed to be that I forgot to `make delete-old' > AngryWolf> and `make delete-old-libs'. > > Thanks, I've run these, 'make delete-old' deleted some insignificant man > pages and 'make delete-old-libs' deleted nothing. And the behavior didn't > change . > > Did you notice, btw, what libs your 'make delete-old-libs' did remove? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
panic: rtfree - any work done currently on this?
Hi, I wonder if any work is done on http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=117913 if it is I'll be happy to test patches and/or suggestions or provide access to a box for debugging. Thanks, --per rtfree: 0xc5732d20 has 1 refs ssppiinn lloocckk 00xxcc5500ff22a20800 ((ttuurrnnssttiillee lloocckk)) hheelldd bbyy 00xxcc5597868600 ((ttiidd 11002154)) tt lloonngg panic: spin lock held too long cpuid = 1 KDB: enter: panic [thread pid 16 tid 100014 ] Stopped at kdb_enter+0x32: leave db> wh Tracing pid 16 tid 100014 td 0xc5117660 kdb_enter(c0a9c7e0,1,c0a9b6b4,e3cb7b7c,1,...) at kdb_enter+0x32 panic(c0a9b6b4,c5119880,c0aa0958,c5119880,186b9,...) at panic+0x124 _mtx_lock_spin_failed(1,19,c0aa0984,cb,19,...) at _mtx_lock_spin_failed+0x51 _thread_lock_flags(c5119880,10,c0aa0984,cb,1,...) at _thread_lock_flags+0xc7 propagate_priority(c0bbd470,0,c0aa0984,2e2,c50f2c80,...) at propagate_priority+0xe0 turnstile_wait(c50f2c80,c55c4cc0,0,17a,c5867d08,...) at turnstile_wait+0x48c _mtx_lock_sleep(c5867d08,c5117660,0,c0ab2afe,1b6,...) at _mtx_lock_sleep+0x15a _mtx_lock_flags(c5867d08,0,c0ab2afe,1b6,3d2a1,...) at _mtx_lock_flags+0xef tcp_timer_rexmt(c58698ac,0,c0a9d9f9,ef,12,...) at tcp_timer_rexmt+0x96 softclock(0,0,c0a993e9,471,c515e364,...) at softclock+0x266 ithread_loop(c5113290,e3cb7d38,c0a9915d,2ea,c515f550,...) at ithread_loop+0x1b5 fork_exit(c0732ea0,c5113290,e3cb7d38) at fork_exit+0xb8 fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0x8 --- trap 0, eip = 0, esp = 0xe3cb7d70, ebp = 0 --- db> ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: No kernel messages displayed during boot
Hi AngryWolf! AngryWolf> Hi, I had the exact same problem after I upgraded to 7.0-BETA2, AngryWolf> and the problem seemed to be that I forgot to `make delete-old' AngryWolf> and `make delete-old-libs'. Thanks, I've run these, 'make delete-old' deleted some insignificant man pages and 'make delete-old-libs' deleted nothing. And the behavior didn't change . Did you notice, btw, what libs your 'make delete-old-libs' did remove? -- Sincerely, Dmitry Karasik ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: No kernel messages displayed during boot
Jeremy> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:01:59PM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
>> I've re-run 'make installworld' and 'make installkernel' (as I had
>> leftovers from recent buildworld), - didn't help. I've tried to power
>> down the machine (suspecied video card trouble), I've resetted BIOS,
>> I've even disabled com port in BIOS (because the behavior looks like
>> booting on serial console) -- nothing, absolutely nothing changes it.
Jeremy> conscontrol(8) might help here ("conscontrol list"). Also worth
Jeremy> looking at is sysctl kern.console.
Hello Jeremy,
Thanks, at least this is a hint. That shows on my system:
$ conscontrol list
Configured:
Available:
Muting: off
and sysctl kern.console is / (not that I know what that means).
Then I try this:
$ conscontrol add /dev/console
conscontrol: could not add console as a console: Device not configured
$ conscontrol add /dev/consolectl
conscontrol: could not add consolectl as a console: Device not configured
Is that the expected behavior? What else I might try?
--
Sincerely,
Dmitry Karasik
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
6.2-RELEASE buildworld failure
Hi, I just csup'd the sources a few hours ago, and successfully compiled and installed a new kernel. However, when I go to do a buildworld, this comes up: -- >>> stage 2.3: build tools -- cd /usr/src; MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX=/usr/obj INSTALL="sh /usr/src/tools/install.sh" PATH=/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/legacy/usr/sbin:/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/legacy/usr/bin:/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/legacy/usr/games:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin WORLDTMP=/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp MAKEFLAGS="-m /usr/src/tools/build/mk -m /usr/src/share/mk" make -f Makefile.inc1 TARGET=i386 TARGET_ARCH=i386 DESTDIR= BOOTSTRAPPING=602114 -DNO_LINT -DNO_CPU_CFLAGS -DNO_WARNS build-tools ===> bin/csh (obj,build-tools) grep 'ERR_' /usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh/sh.err.c | grep '^#define' >> sh.err.h cc -E -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -I. -I/usr/src/bin/csh -I/usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh -D_PATH_TCSHELL='"/bin/csh"' -DHAVE_ICONV -I/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/legacy/usr/include /usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh/tc.const.c /usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh/sh.char.h /usr/src/bin/csh/config.h /usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh/config_f.h /usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh/sh.types.h sh.err.h -D_h_tc_const | grep 'Char STR' | sed -e 's/Char \([a-zA-Z0-9_]*\)\(.*\)/extern Char \1[];/' | sort >> tc.const.h cc -o gethost -L/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/legacy/usr/lib -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -I. -I/usr/src/bin/csh -I/usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh -D_PATH_TCSHELL='"/bin/csh"' -DHAVE_ICONV -I/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/legacy/usr/include /usr/src/bin/csh/../../contrib/tcsh/gethost.c /var/tmp//cck5eSfw.o(.text+0x25): In function `gettoken': : undefined reference to `__sbmaskrune' /var/tmp//cck5eSfw.o(.text+0x60): In function `gettoken': : undefined reference to `__sbmaskrune' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src/bin/csh. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src. Any ideas? Russell Doucette ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
