Re: FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath/mwl
On 2/27/2010 9:09 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 27 Feb 2010, at 20:29, Robert Watson wrote: > Progress on supporting 11n with atheros cards is on going. There's much more > to it than adapting the rate control algorithm. Please stay tuned. Are you aware if similar work ongoing for the mwl(4) based 802.11n cards? I picked up a couple cheap this past week and have them working with hostapd but, as with the OP in the thread, only with G rates. The ifconfig[1] output suggests that it is using 40MHz wide ht channels but devices only associate at 54Mbps[2]. Jim [1] ifconfig mwl0_wlan1 mwl0_wlan1: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 ether 00:01:36:17:96:0e inet6 fe80::201:36ff:fe17:960e%mwl0_wlan1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x9 inet 192.168.15.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.15.255 nd6 options=3 media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet autoselect mode 11na status: running ssid WatchTower channel 100 (5500 MHz 11a ht/40+) bssid 00:01:36:17:96:0e regdomain DEBUG indoor authmode WPA2/802.11i privacy MIXED deftxkey 3 AES-CCM 2:128-bit AES-CCM 3:128-bit txpower 14 scanvalid 60 ampdulimit 64k ampdudensity 4 shortgi smps burst dtimperiod 1 [2] ifconfig mwl0_wlan1 list sta (w/addr removed) AID CHAN RATE RSSI IDLE TXSEQ RXSEQ CAPS FLAG 1 120 54M 33.00 1537 25952 EP A RSN (rssi 68:20:20 nf 0:0:0) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath
Hi, On 27 Feb 2010, at 20:29, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Spil Oss wrote: > >> Thanks for the confirmation! >> >> Is anything known re. a timeline for implementation of wireless-N? (8.1? >> 9.0?) > > I know that Rui Paulo is working on this actively; I've added him to the CC > line as I'm not sure if he follows freebsd-stable. > > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge > >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Spil >> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bernhard Schmidt >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:27:09PM +0100, Spil Oss wrote: Hi All, Got myself an Atheros AR5416 card to upgrade my HostAP to Wireless-N speed. Somehow I can't find a way to convince the driver to go into 11n mode # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11b # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11g # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11n ifconfig: SIOCSIFMEDIA (media): Device not configured >>> >>> It's either mode 11na or mode 11ng. >>> The man-page for ifconfig specifies only 11a, 11b and 11g as modes. The part is functioning fine in 11g mode. The man page also specifies 11na and 11ng, so I hope you're running 8.0, at least. Am I missing something obvious or is Wireless-N support not fully implemented yet? >>> >>> There is no rate control algo fuer 11n, afaik, you will only be able to >>> use legacy rates. Progress on supporting 11n with atheros cards is on going. There's much more to it than adapting the rate control algorithm. Please stay tuned. Regards, -- Rui Paulo ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: 8.0 on new hardware and a few errors, should I be worried?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 03:28:48AM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote: > Additionally, while building a whole bunch of ports on this new system > (about 30 or so, samba, ncftp, portaudit, bash, the usual suspects), I > noticed the following in my logs during the build process: > > -- > Feb 27 21:24:01 atombsd kernel: pid 38846 (try), uid 0: exited on > signal 10 (core dumped) > Feb 27 22:17:49 atombsd kernel: pid 89665 (conftest), uid 0: exited on > signal 6 (core dumped) > -- This is intentional/normal, believe it or not. It's by-design as part of some compiler tests that autoconf (or the software that uses autoconf) induces. Thanks, GNU! FreeBSD logs these to the console by default; the sysctl to control this behaviour is kern.logsigexit. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@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 "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
8.0 on new hardware and a few errors, should I be worried?
Hello I've very recently finished installing 8.0-RELEASE on some new hardware and I noticed a few error messages that make me a bit uneasy. This is a snip from my dmesg: -- acpi0: on motherboard acpi0: [ITHREAD] acpi0: Power Button (fixed) acpi0: reservation of fee0, 1000 (3) failed acpi0: reservation of 0, a (3) failed acpi0: reservation of 10, bf60 (3) failed -- What do these mean and should I worry about it? The full DMESG can be viewed here: http://jago.pp.fi/temp/dmesg.txt Additionally, while building a whole bunch of ports on this new system (about 30 or so, samba, ncftp, portaudit, bash, the usual suspects), I noticed the following in my logs during the build process: -- Feb 27 21:24:01 atombsd kernel: pid 38846 (try), uid 0: exited on signal 10 (core dumped) Feb 27 22:17:49 atombsd kernel: pid 89665 (conftest), uid 0: exited on signal 6 (core dumped) -- All ports seem to have built and installed succesfully. Again, what do these mean and should I worry about it? :) Thanks! - Sincerely, Dan Naumov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
ANNOUNCE: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD Errata Notice FreeBSD-EN-10:02.sched_ule
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 = FreeBSD-EN-10:02.sched_ule Errata Notice The FreeBSD Project Topic: Deadlock in ULE scheduler Category: core Module: kern Announced: 2010-02-27 Credits:Attilio Rao Affects:FreeBSD 7.0, 7.1, and 7.2. Corrected: 2009-09-24 09:08:22 UTC (RELENG_7, 7.2-STABLE) 2010-02-27 10:55:43 UTC (RELENG_7_2, 7.2-RELEASE-p7) 2010-02-27 10:55:43 UTC (RELENG_7_1, 7.1-RELEASE-p11) For general information regarding FreeBSD Errata Notices and Security Advisories, including descriptions of the fields above, security branches, and the following sections, please visit http://security.freebsd.org/>. I. Background FreeBSD has two schedulers: the classic 4BSD scheduler and a newer, more SMP-aware scheduler called ULE. The 4BSD scheduler was the default scheduler until FreeBSD 7.0. Starting with FreeBSD 7.1 the default scheduler is ULE. The scheduler is responsible for allocating CPU time to threads and assigning threads to CPUs. Runnable threads (i.e. threads which are not waiting for a blocking operation, such as an I/O operation, memory allocation or lock acquisition, to complete) are assigned to a CPU and placed in that CPU's run queue. Each thread and each CPU's run queue is protected by a separate lock. II. Problem Description When a thread is reassigned from one CPU to another, the scheduler first acquires the thread's lock, then releases the source CPU's run queue lock. The scheduler then acquires the target CPU's run queue lock and holds the lock while it adds the thread to the queue and signals the target CPU. Finally it reacquires the source CPU's run queue lock before unlocking the thread. A thread on the target CPU, having been notified of the reassigned thread's arrival on the target CPU's run queue, will then acquire the thread's lock before switching it in. If, at the same time, a third thread tries to acquire both the source and target CPUs' run queue locks, a three-way deadlock may occur: - The second thread has acquired the target CPU's run queue lock, but has not yet acquired the first thread's lock. - The third thread has acquired the source CPU's run queue lock, and is waiting to acquire the target CPU's run queue lock, which is locked by the second thread. - The first thread is waiting to acquire the source CPU's run queue lock, which is held by the third thread, in order to release its own lock. As a result both CPUs' run queues are locked, and each of the three threads is waiting to acquire a lock held by one of the others. Eventually every CPU in the system ends up in a state where it is waiting to acquire each other's locks. It has not been determined whether this also affects single-CPU systems but it is recommended this Errata Notice be applied to single-CPU systems as well. III. Impact Affected systems may become deadlocked and require power-cycling. The chance of a deadlock occurring increases with the number of CPUs. There may be other aggravating factors such as running powerd(8). But eventually any multi-processor system using the ULE scheduler will become deadlocked. IV. Workaround Replace SCHED_ULE with SCHED_4BSD in your kernel configuration, recompile your kernel and reboot the system. Note that systems running the 4BSD scheduler are not affected; to determine what scheduler a system is using, run # sysctl kern.sched.name V. Solution Perform one of the following: 1) Upgrade your system to 7-STABLE, or to the RELENG_7_2 or RELENG_7_1 security branch dated after the correction date. 2) To patch your present system: The following patches have been verified to apply to FreeBSD 7.1 and 7.2 systems. a) Download the relevant patch from the location below, and verify the detached PGP signature using your PGP utility. # fetch http://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/EN-10:02/sched_ule.patch # fetch http://security.FreeBSD.org/patches/EN-10:02/sched_ule.patch.asc b) Apply the patch. # cd /usr/src # patch < /path/to/patch c) Recompile your kernel as described in http://www.FreeBSD.org/handbook/kernelconfig.html> and reboot the system. VI. Correction details The following list contains the revision numbers of each file that was corrected in FreeBSD. CVS: Branch Revision Path - - RELENG_7 src/sys/kern/sched_ule.c 1.214.2.9 RELENG_7_2 src/UPDATING1.507.2.23.2.10 src/sys/conf/newvers.sh 1.72.2.11.2.11 src/sys/kern/sched_ule.c 1.214.2.8.2.2 RELENG_7_1 src/UPDATING
Re: trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode on 8.0-RELEASE (possibly bge(4) related)
Hi Pyun, On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 01:12:01PM -0800, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > Since I don't have BCM5704 hardware it's hard to find which > revision may affect to this issue. Could you narrow down which > revision number started showing the issue? I have BCM5704 hardware (Tyan S2882 system board). I am seeing kernel panics very similar to those described in this thread on this hardware. pciconf -lcv output below. If you'd like access to this hardware I can arrange it; please contact me off list. Erik b...@pci0:2:9:0:class=0x02 card=0x164414e4 chip=0x164814e4 rev=0x03 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Broadcom Corporation' device = 'NetXtreme Dual Gigabit Adapter (BCM5704)' class = network subclass = ethernet cap 07[40] = PCI-X 64-bit supports 133MHz, 2048 burst read, 1 split transaction cap 01[48] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 cap 03[50] = VPD cap 05[58] = MSI supports 8 messages, 64 bit b...@pci0:2:9:1:class=0x02 card=0x164414e4 chip=0x164814e4 rev=0x03 hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Broadcom Corporation' device = 'NetXtreme Dual Gigabit Adapter (BCM5704)' class = network subclass = ethernet cap 07[40] = PCI-X 64-bit supports 133MHz, 2048 burst read, 1 split transaction cap 01[48] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 cap 03[50] = VPD cap 05[58] = MSI supports 8 messages, 64 bit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:53:00PM +0100, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > On 27-2-2010 21:32, Eirik Øverby wrote: > >I've had a discussion with some folks on this for a while. I can easily > >reproduce this situation by mounting a FreeBSD ZFS filesystem via > >NFS-UDP from an OpenBSD machine. Telling the OpenBSD machine to use TCP > >instead of UDP makes the problem go away. > > > >Other FreeBSD systems mounting the same share, either using UDP or TCP, > >does not cause the problem to show up. > > > >A patch was suggested by Rick Macklem, but that did not solve the issue: > >http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-December/014181.html > > I concur. > Everything in my network is now on TCP, and there is no mbuf leakage. > I just don't get over the 5500 mark, no matter what I throw at it. > > I do feel that TCP is not as well performing on a local net with Linux, > hence the choice for UDP. But TCP is workable as next best. I'm pulling in Robert Watson, who has some familiarity with the UDP stack/code in FreeBSD. I'm not sure he'll be a sufficient source of knowledge for this specific issue since it appears (?) to be specific to NFS; Rick Macklem would be a better choice, but as reported, he's MIA. Robert, are you aware of any changes or implementation issues which might cause excessive (read: leaking) mbuf use under UDP-based NFS? Do you know of a way folks could determine the source of the leak, either via DDB or while the system is live? -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@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 "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On 27-2-2010 21:32, Eirik Øverby wrote: I've had a discussion with some folks on this for a while. I can easily reproduce this situation by mounting a FreeBSD ZFS filesystem via NFS-UDP from an OpenBSD machine. Telling the OpenBSD machine to use TCP instead of UDP makes the problem go away. Other FreeBSD systems mounting the same share, either using UDP or TCP, does not cause the problem to show up. A patch was suggested by Rick Macklem, but that did not solve the issue: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-December/014181.html I concur. Everything in my network is now on TCP, and there is no mbuf leakage. I just don't get over the 5500 mark, no matter what I throw at it. I do feel that TCP is not as well performing on a local net with Linux, hence the choice for UDP. But TCP is workable as next best. --WjW ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:40:43 +0100 Eirik Øverby wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: E> > So we see this problem with udp clients from OpenBSD and Linux. E> I have not had the opportunity to test with Linux or anything else. I guess all others who reported so far (including me) had Linux on the client side. E> Could try from Windows, but not sure I want to get my hands THAT dirty. :-))) E> > As Daniel reported he saw the problem with FBSD 8-stable: Which E> > version was the FBSD-client that worked for you with udp? E> 7.1, 7.2, 8.0-RCsomething and 8.0-RELEASE - no problems with either. Daniel, are you sure you had the leakage with 8-stable? Eirik, do you have the opportunity to try 8-stable with udp? cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:38:19 -0800 Jeremy Chadwick wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: JC> I should point out that the NFS+ZFS-based filer doesn't actually do its JC> backups using NFS; it uses rsnapshot (rsync) over SSH. There is JC> intense network I/O during backup time though, depending on how much JC> data there is to back up. The NFS mounts (on the clients) are only JC> used to provide a way for people to get access to their nightly JC> backups in a convenient way; it isn't used very heavily. That's rather similar to my situation, I would say. Most traffic goes via rsync, nfs only gives access to home dirs, which are not intensively used. JC> I can do something NFS-intensive on any of the above clients if people JC> want me to kind of testing. Possibly an rsync with a source of the NFS JC> mount and a destination of the local disk would be a good test? Let me JC> know if anyone's interested in me testing that. >From the last emails I would say we get most out of it by comparing tcp and udp clients to make sure this happens only with udp (and it is still not quite clear to me if it also happens with a FBSD client using udp). OTOH it would be great if someone with the ability to actually fix something in the nfs code could get in this discussion to guide us to do the debugging needed to do so. cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On 27. feb. 2010, at 22.38, Gerrit Kühn wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:32:39 +0100 Eirik Øverby wrote > about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: > > E> I've had a discussion with some folks on this for a while. I can easily > E> reproduce this situation by mounting a FreeBSD ZFS filesystem via > E> NFS-UDP from an OpenBSD machine. Telling the OpenBSD machine to use TCP > E> instead of UDP makes the problem go away. > > So we see this problem with udp clients from OpenBSD and Linux. I have not had the opportunity to test with Linux or anything else. Could try from Windows, but not sure I want to get my hands THAT dirty. > E> Other FreeBSD systems mounting the same share, either using UDP or TCP, > E> does not cause the problem to show up. > > As Daniel reported he saw the problem with FBSD 8-stable: Which version > was the FBSD-client that worked for you with udp? 7.1, 7.2, 8.0-RCsomething and 8.0-RELEASE - no problems with either. > E> A patch was suggested by Rick Macklem, but that did not solve the issue: > E> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-December/014181.html > > Yeah, I also found and tried this on Friday - unfortunately without any > success, the leakage is still there. > > > cu > Gerrit > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:36:47 +0200 Daniel Braniss wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : DB> I have been running for the last few hours, 8-rel, and the only client DB> is another DB> 8-stable, furthermore, no ZFS, just plain UFS, and the leak is there! Mounted via udp, not tcp, I guess...?! DB> I am now trying 8-rc2 but will check in the morning, it is after all DB> saturday night :-) Same here. :-) cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:32:39 +0100 Eirik Øverby wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: E> I've had a discussion with some folks on this for a while. I can easily E> reproduce this situation by mounting a FreeBSD ZFS filesystem via E> NFS-UDP from an OpenBSD machine. Telling the OpenBSD machine to use TCP E> instead of UDP makes the problem go away. So we see this problem with udp clients from OpenBSD and Linux. E> Other FreeBSD systems mounting the same share, either using UDP or TCP, E> does not cause the problem to show up. As Daniel reported he saw the problem with FBSD 8-stable: Which version was the FBSD-client that worked for you with udp? E> A patch was suggested by Rick Macklem, but that did not solve the issue: E> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-December/014181.html Yeah, I also found and tried this on Friday - unfortunately without any success, the leakage is still there. cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: 8.0-RELEASE/amd64 - full ZFS install - low read and write disk performance (fixed)
Hello folks A few weeks ago, there was a discussion started by me regarding abysmal read/write performance using ZFS mirror on 8.0-RELEASE. I was using an Atom 330 system with 2GB ram and it was pointed out to me that my problem was most likely having both disks attached to a PCI SIL3124 controller, switching to the new AHCI drivers didn't help one bit. To reitirate, here are the Bonnie and DD numbers I got on that system: === Atom 330 / 2gb ram / Intel board + PCI SIL3124 ---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 8192 21041 53.5 22644 19.4 13724 12.8 25321 48.5 43110 14.0 143.2 3.3 dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test1 bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes transferred in 143.878615 secs (29851325 bytes/sec) (28,4 mb/s) === Since then, I switched the exact same disks to a different system: Atom D510 / 4gb ram / Supermicro X7SPA-H / ICH9R controller (native). Here are the updated results: ---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 8192 30057 68.7 50965 36.4 27236 21.3 33317 58.0 53051 14.3 172.4 3.2 dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test1 bs=1M count=4096 4096+0 records in 4096+0 records out 4294967296 bytes transferred in 54.977978 secs (78121594 bytes/sec) (74,5 mb/s) === Write performance now seems to have increased by a factor of 2 to 3 and is now definately in line with the expected performance of the disks in question (cheap 2TB WD20EADS with 32mb cache). Thanks to everyone who has offered help and tips! - Sincerely, Dan Naumov ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On 27. feb. 2010, at 20.38, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Gerrit Kühn wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen >> wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: >> >> WJW> > 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> WJW> > 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use >> WJW> > (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of packet >> WJW> > secondary zone in use (current/cache) >> >> WJW> Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. >> WJW> >> WJW> 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> WJW> 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> WJW> 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use >> WJW> (current/cache) >> >> After about 24h I now have >> >> 128320/2630/130950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> 127294/1200/128494/512000 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> 127294/834 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) > > Follow-up regarding my server statistics shown here: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-February/055458.html > > I just pulled the statistics on the same servers for comparison (then > vs. now). > > RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/09 -- primary HTTP, pri DNS, SSH server + ZFS > > 515/1930/2445 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 512/540/1052/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 1152K/6394K/7547K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > > RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/11 -- secondary DNS, MySQL, dev box + ZFS > > 514/1151/1665 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 512/504/1016/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 1152K/2203K/3356K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > > RELENG_7 i386 2008/04/19 -- secondary HTTP, SSH server, heavy memory I/O > > 515/820/1335 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 513/631/1144/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 1154K/2615K/3769K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > > RELENG_8 amd64 2010/02/02 -- central backups + NFS+ZFS-based filer > > 1572/3423/4995 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 1539/3089/4628/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 3471K/7449K/10920K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > > So, not much difference. > > I should point out that the NFS+ZFS-based filer doesn't actually do its > backups using NFS; it uses rsnapshot (rsync) over SSH. There is intense > network I/O during backup time though, depending on how much data there > is to back up. The NFS mounts (on the clients) are only used to provide > a way for people to get access to their nightly backups in a convenient > way; it isn't used very heavily. > > I can do something NFS-intensive on any of the above clients if people > want me to kind of testing. Possibly an rsync with a source of the NFS > mount and a destination of the local disk would be a good test? Let me > know if anyone's interested in me testing that. I've had a discussion with some folks on this for a while. I can easily reproduce this situation by mounting a FreeBSD ZFS filesystem via NFS-UDP from an OpenBSD machine. Telling the OpenBSD machine to use TCP instead of UDP makes the problem go away. Other FreeBSD systems mounting the same share, either using UDP or TCP, does not cause the problem to show up. A patch was suggested by Rick Macklem, but that did not solve the issue: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2009-December/014181.html /Eirik > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick j...@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 "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Spil Oss wrote: Thanks for the confirmation! Is anything known re. a timeline for implementation of wireless-N? (8.1? 9.0?) I know that Rui Paulo is working on this actively; I've added him to the CC line as I'm not sure if he follows freebsd-stable. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge Kind regards, Spil On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:27:09PM +0100, Spil Oss wrote: Hi All, Got myself an Atheros AR5416 card to upgrade my HostAP to Wireless-N speed. Somehow I can't find a way to convince the driver to go into 11n mode # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11b # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11g # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11n ifconfig: SIOCSIFMEDIA (media): Device not configured It's either mode 11na or mode 11ng. The man-page for ifconfig specifies only 11a, 11b and 11g as modes. The part is functioning fine in 11g mode. Am I missing something obvious or is Wireless-N support not fully implemented yet? There is no rate control algo fuer 11n, afaik, you will only be able to use legacy rates. -- Bernhard ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Gerrit Kühn wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen > wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: > > WJW> > 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > WJW> > 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use > WJW> > (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of packet > WJW> > secondary zone in use (current/cache) > > WJW> Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. > WJW> > WJW> 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > WJW> 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > WJW> 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > WJW> (current/cache) > > After about 24h I now have > > 128320/2630/130950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 127294/1200/128494/512000 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 127294/834 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) Follow-up regarding my server statistics shown here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-February/055458.html I just pulled the statistics on the same servers for comparison (then vs. now). RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/09 -- primary HTTP, pri DNS, SSH server + ZFS 515/1930/2445 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 512/540/1052/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1152K/6394K/7547K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_7 amd64 2010/01/11 -- secondary DNS, MySQL, dev box + ZFS 514/1151/1665 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 512/504/1016/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1152K/2203K/3356K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_7 i386 2008/04/19 -- secondary HTTP, SSH server, heavy memory I/O 515/820/1335 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 513/631/1144/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 1154K/2615K/3769K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) RELENG_8 amd64 2010/02/02 -- central backups + NFS+ZFS-based filer 1572/3423/4995 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 1539/3089/4628/25600 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 3471K/7449K/10920K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) So, not much difference. I should point out that the NFS+ZFS-based filer doesn't actually do its backups using NFS; it uses rsnapshot (rsync) over SSH. There is intense network I/O during backup time though, depending on how much data there is to back up. The NFS mounts (on the clients) are only used to provide a way for people to get access to their nightly backups in a convenient way; it isn't used very heavily. I can do something NFS-intensive on any of the above clients if people want me to kind of testing. Possibly an rsync with a source of the NFS mount and a destination of the local disk would be a good test? Let me know if anyone's interested in me testing that. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@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 "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:26:02 +0200 Daniel Braniss > wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : > > > DB> > Hm, I've got a server with 8-PRE from somewhen in Nov09 that is > DB> > serving nfs from zfs fine and shows no leakage... > > DB> the binary search has started! > > After considering the last email from Willem: My 8-PRE server does not > have udp Linux clients, only Linux with tcp. If indeed Linux with udp is > causing the problem, it may very well even be in 8-PRE, and I just did not > see it so far. I have been running for the last few hours, 8-rel, and the only client is another 8-stable, furthermore, no ZFS, just plain UFS, and the leak is there! I am now trying 8-rc2 but will check in the morning, it is after all saturday night :-) danny ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:26:02 +0200 Daniel Braniss wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : DB> > Hm, I've got a server with 8-PRE from somewhen in Nov09 that is DB> > serving nfs from zfs fine and shows no leakage... DB> the binary search has started! After considering the last email from Willem: My 8-PRE server does not have udp Linux clients, only Linux with tcp. If indeed Linux with udp is causing the problem, it may very well even be in 8-PRE, and I just did not see it so far. cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:52 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: WJW> > 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) WJW> > 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use WJW> > (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of packet WJW> > secondary zone in use (current/cache) WJW> Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. WJW> WJW> 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) WJW> 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) WJW> 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use WJW> (current/cache) After about 24h I now have 128320/2630/130950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 127294/1200/128494/512000 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 127294/834 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) WJW> I only have one Linux box runing Kubuntu 8.10, mounted UDP: WJW> (rw,udp,nolock,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,intr) Hm, are you able to narrow this down? Does a single Linux client with tcp mount cause the same trouble? Or a FreeBSD client with udp? If it was only Linux clients with udp mounts or something like this, I could understand why it took some time to pop up. WJW> But running something like 'find openembedded | xarg cat > /dev/null' WJW> Shows a steadily growing number of mbufs, and letting the system sit WJW> for 5 min. doesn't decrease the used mbufs I still have several udp and tcp mounts by Linux clients on my Server, though most of them are probably stale now after the upgrade; and my buffers keep draining... WJW> Doing this on another FreeBSD 7.2 client runs the mbufs up(max inc WJW> about 2000 mbuf), but within a few secs after the last file was WJW> fetched, the mbuf tab runs down to around to what is was before the WJW> command. FreeBSD client with udp mount? Then it is either Linux client with udp or all Linux clients triggering this leakage. I doubt that this is the case with all Linux clients, this would have caused more trouble earlier. WJW> Not shure where to go from here? I'm certainly not fluent enough in WJW> NFS to start interpreting a wireshark trace. Nor do I. I already wrote Rick Macklem an Email on Friday, but so far only got back an automated reply stating he is on "permanent vacation". I guess we need him or one of the other nfs guys to get this fixed. Could you try a single Linux client with tcp mount in the meantime? This would tell us if Linux clients as such are causing the issue, or if it is only Linux with udp mount. cu Gerrit P.S.: I cc'ed freebsd-fs because my PR went there. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On 27-2-2010 8:02, Gerrit Kühn wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 23:12:39 +0100 Willem Jan Withagen wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?: WJW> Mine are now: WJW> 41533/2402/43935 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) WJW> 41454/1572/43026/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) WJW> 39241/823 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use WJW> (current/cache) 81492/2613/84105 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 80467/2235/82702/128000 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 80458/822 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) Over the night I only had rsync and FreeBSD nfs traffic. 45337/2828/48165 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 44708/1902/46610/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 44040/888 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) I only have one Linux box runing Kubuntu 8.10, mounted UDP: (rw,udp,nolock,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,intr) Now runing ls -R on the remote file system only lets the mbufs slightly decrease But running something like 'find openembedded | xarg cat > /dev/null' Shows a steadily growing number of mbufs, and letting the system sit for 5 min. doesn't decrease the used mbufs 48438/3672/52110 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 47757/3461/51218/262144 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 47406/850 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) Doing this on another FreeBSD 7.2 client runs the mbufs up(max inc about 2000 mbuf), but within a few secs after the last file was fetched, the mbuf tab runs down to around to what is was before the command. Not shure where to go from here? I'm certainly not fluent enough in NFS to start interpreting a wireshark trace. --WjW ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath
Thanks for the confirmation! Is anything known re. a timeline for implementation of wireless-N? (8.1? 9.0?) Kind regards, Spil On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:27:09PM +0100, Spil Oss wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Got myself an Atheros AR5416 card to upgrade my HostAP to Wireless-N speed. >> >> Somehow I can't find a way to convince the driver to go into 11n mode >> >> # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11b >> # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11g >> # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11n >> ifconfig: SIOCSIFMEDIA (media): Device not configured > > It's either mode 11na or mode 11ng. > >> The man-page for ifconfig specifies only 11a, 11b and 11g as modes. >> The part is functioning fine in 11g mode. >> >> Am I missing something obvious or is Wireless-N support not fully >> implemented yet? > > There is no rate control algo fuer 11n, afaik, you will only be able to > use legacy rates. > > -- > Bernhard > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:27:09PM +0100, Spil Oss wrote: > Hi All, > > Got myself an Atheros AR5416 card to upgrade my HostAP to Wireless-N speed. > > Somehow I can't find a way to convince the driver to go into 11n mode > > # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11b > # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11g > # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11n > ifconfig: SIOCSIFMEDIA (media): Device not configured It's either mode 11na or mode 11ng. > The man-page for ifconfig specifies only 11a, 11b and 11g as modes. > The part is functioning fine in 11g mode. > > Am I missing something obvious or is Wireless-N support not fully > implemented yet? There is no rate control algo fuer 11n, afaik, you will only be able to use legacy rates. -- Bernhard ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
FreeBSD-8.0 802.11n support with ath
Hi All, Got myself an Atheros AR5416 card to upgrade my HostAP to Wireless-N speed. Somehow I can't find a way to convince the driver to go into 11n mode # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11b # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11g # ifconfig wlan0 mode 11n ifconfig: SIOCSIFMEDIA (media): Device not configured # uname -a FreeBSD server.example.org 8.0-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p2 #1: Thu Jan 14 16:35:41 UTC 2010 root@:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SERVER80 i386 # dmesg | grep ath ath0: mem 0xfcfd-0xfcfd irq 9 at device 3.0 on pci1 ath0: [ITHREAD] ath0: AR5416 mac 13.10 RF2133 phy 8.1 kernel was compiled with options AH_SUPPORT_AR5416 The man-page for ifconfig specifies only 11a, 11b and 11g as modes. The part is functioning fine in 11g mode. Am I missing something obvious or is Wireless-N support not fully implemented yet? Kind regards, Spil. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:26:02 +0200 Daniel Braniss wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : DB> > Hm, I've got a server with 8-PRE from somewhen in Nov09 that is DB> > serving nfs from zfs fine and shows no leakage... DB> the binary search has started! DB> sorry, have to go know :-) [realy], but should be back in a couple of DB> hours, let me know if you managed to pin it down, else I can continue. Sorry, but I cannot do much over the weekend. Both the machine with leakage and the one without are in production (and about 40km apart from each other and away from my home :-). I still wonder if there are more circumstances needed to provoke this problem. I really doubt that this would have gone unnoticed for weeks or even months if it only takes some nfs-server serving from zfs storage and some client to see it. What does the client in your test setup look like? cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:14:56 +0200 Daniel Braniss > wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : > > DB> anyways, I am running tests on an 'unused' server, only me using it to > DB> 'make world' > DB> and it's leaking. > > Hm, I've got a server with 8-PRE from somewhen in Nov09 that is serving > nfs from zfs fine and shows no leakage... > > > cu > Gerrit the binary search has started! sorry, have to go know :-) [realy], but should be back in a couple of hours, let me know if you managed to pin it down, else I can continue. danny ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:14:56 +0200 Daniel Braniss wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : DB> anyways, I am running tests on an 'unused' server, only me using it to DB> 'make world' DB> and it's leaking. Hm, I've got a server with 8-PRE from somewhen in Nov09 that is serving nfs from zfs fine and shows no leakage... cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:24:10 +0200 Daniel Braniss > wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : > > DB> I doubt it, but here is another shot: > DB> are we all running samba? I'm asking because the lock manager keeps > DB> dying and ... > > Nope, no samba on my side. I am running lockd and statd on the server, but > stoppeing them does not change anything. All clients are using option > nolock anyway. > it was a shot in the dark. anyways, I am running tests on an 'unused' server, only me using it to 'make world' and it's leaking. cheers, danny ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs?
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:24:10 +0200 Daniel Braniss wrote about Re: mbuf leakage with nfs/zfs? : DB> I doubt it, but here is another shot: DB> are we all running samba? I'm asking because the lock manager keeps DB> dying and ... Nope, no samba on my side. I am running lockd and statd on the server, but stoppeing them does not change anything. All clients are using option nolock anyway. DB> PS: I dropped Jack from the CC, I think em is innocent :-) Yes, good idea. cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Cannot write to nfsv4 share
I have the same trable as Richard Mace http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2009-December/209334.html nfs server ]>uname -a FreeBSD bazar 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #0: Thu Feb 25 14:42:08 MSK 2010 In rc.conf: nfs_server_enable="YES" #nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 16" nfsv4_server_enable="YES" nfsuserd_enable="YES" mountd_flags="-r" rpcbind_enable="YES" rpc_lockd_enable="YES" rpc_statd_enable="YES" nfs_client_enable="YES" in exports: /exp/home -maproot=0:0 192.168.3.195 10.144.142.57 V4: /exp /exp/fbsd71 /exp/ports /exp/distfiles /exp/fbsd_src/7.2/src /exp/fbsd_src/8.0/src /exp/fbsd_src/stable/src ]>showmount -e Exports list on localhost: /exp/ports Everyone /exp/home 192.168.3.195 10.144.142.57 10.144.142.54 /exp/fbsd_src/stable/src Everyone /exp/fbsd_src/8.0/src Everyone /exp/fbsd_src/7.2/src Everyone /exp/fbsd71Everyone /exp/distfiles Everyone On client ]>uname -a FreeBSD skuns.gsm900.net 8.0-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE-p2 #2: Wed Jan 20 10:55:34 MSK 2010 in rc.conf: nfsuserd_enable="YES" nfscbd_enable="YES" nfs_client_enable="YES" rpc_lockd_enable="YES" rpc_statd_enable="YES" rpcbind_enable="YES" in fstab 10.144.140.160:/distfiles /exp/distfilesnfs rw,nfsv4,noauto 0 0 try to mount /exp/distfiles ]>mount /exp/distfiles ]> try to write ]>touch /exp/distfiles/t touch: /exp/distfiles/t: Permission denied ls and read files ok. p.s. showmount on server dosnt show clients when client has mounted share. -- alexs ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
