Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 10:52:44AM +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote: > I'm thinking of upgrading one server from 2GB to 6GB of memory. > > Since the regular DragonFly/i386 version will not be able to fully use it, I'm > also considering upgrading the OS to Dragonfly/x86-64. > > The machine is mainly running Postgres, Apache and Ruby (fast-cgi) for use > with a Ruby-on-Rails application. > > What is your experience with the 64-bit version ? Is it now stable enough to > be used in a server ? For the archives, I have now upgraded this server to DragonFly/x86-64. It has been running for a little bit less than a week and is rock solid. I just had to be careful to not set LANG in my shell. I have opened a bug entry for this problem: http://bugs.dragonflybsd.org/issue1782 -- Francois Tigeot
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
Max Herrgård wrote: I got segfaults with firefox, thunderbird and xfce on x86_64 pretty often. fwiw I'm getting crashes on the moz apps on 32bit as well.. I think there's something subtle hiding out somewhere in GTK land, or perhaps in the mozilla JS engine w/our threads.. anyhow.. yeah..
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:44:26PM -0400, Justin C. Sherrill wrote: > On Fri, June 11, 2010 2:36 am, Francois Tigeot wrote: > > > Yeah, I don't believe Postgres is to blame either. > > During the pkgsrc build, many make instances were also dying with signal > > 11. > > > > Every time I have tested the amd64/x86-64 DragonFly port, I found out this > > segfault problem was a constant. > > I don't see signal 11 errors on any of the failed builds for x86_64 that > I've been doing as bulk builds. > > Has this happened on more than one x86_64 machine? It's strange. I've found the explanation: The crashes are dependants on the value of the LANG environment variable. With LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8 (my default value), I get instant crashes in many applications. After unsetting $LANG, all applications run as intended, including Postgres. I'll try to find more details and open a proper bug report soon. -- Francois Tigeot
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:44:26PM -0400, Justin C. Sherrill wrote: > On Fri, June 11, 2010 2:36 am, Francois Tigeot wrote: > > > Yeah, I don't believe Postgres is to blame either. > > During the pkgsrc build, many make instances were also dying with signal > > 11. > > I don't see signal 11 errors on any of the failed builds for x86_64 that > I've been doing as bulk builds. > > (wandering through here for example) > http://avalon.dragonflybsd.org/reports/x86_64/2.7/20100611.1041/meta/report.html > > Has this happened on more than one x86_64 machine? It's strange. I have only tested the 64-bit build on one machine for now. The hardware is not unusual: Core 2 Duo, Intel D975XBX2 mainboard. DragonFly/i386 is rock solid on the same PC. -- Francois Tigeot
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
I got segfaults with firefox, thunderbird and xfce on x86_64 pretty often. Didn't look into it though. Packages were from the bulk build and system was 2.7 I think. Max
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Fri, June 11, 2010 2:36 am, Francois Tigeot wrote: > Yeah, I don't believe Postgres is to blame either. > During the pkgsrc build, many make instances were also dying with signal > 11. > > Every time I have tested the amd64/x86-64 DragonFly port, I found out this > segfault problem was a constant. I don't see signal 11 errors on any of the failed builds for x86_64 that I've been doing as bulk builds. (wandering through here for example) http://avalon.dragonflybsd.org/reports/x86_64/2.7/20100611.1041/meta/report.html Has this happened on more than one x86_64 machine? It's strange.
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 02:23:59AM -0500, Tyler Mills wrote: > What version of postgres are you running? I am able to load 8.4 on an > x64 build: > > DragonFly tyler-bsd.local 2.7-DEVELOPMENT DragonFly > v2.7.3.132.g6846f-DEVELOPMENT #4: Thu Jun 10 02:46:08 CDT 2010 > r...@tyler-bsd.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/X64_SMP x86_64 I also tried with Postgres 8.4. My test was with DragonFly 2.6, howewer. I'll try to upgrade to 2.7 and see if it makes a difference. -- Francois Tigeot
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
What version of postgres are you running? I am able to load 8.4 on an x64 build: DragonFly tyler-bsd.local 2.7-DEVELOPMENT DragonFly v2.7.3.132.g6846f-DEVELOPMENT #4: Thu Jun 10 02:46:08 CDT 2010 r...@tyler-bsd.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/X64_SMP x86_64 On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Francois Tigeot wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:55:53PM -0600, Samuel J. Greear wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Justin C. Sherrill >> wrote: >> > On Thu, June 10, 2010 4:32 pm, Francois Tigeot wrote: >> > >> >> Installing applications from pkgsrc went well. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, running Postgres is a different matter: >> >> # /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/pgsql start >> >> Starting pgsql. >> >> seg-fault accessing address 0x58 rip=0x80077037d pid=20186 >> >> p_comm=pg_ctl Segmentation fault >> > >> > Is this from a prebuilt binary or one that you compiled yourself? It may >> > be worth building locally if you did not before. > > It was built locally. > >> > Otherwise: http://www.postgresql.org/support/submitbug >> >> If I had to guess I would say it is likely that this is our bug, >> probably in one of the kernel sysv subsystems. > > Yeah, I don't believe Postgres is to blame either. > During the pkgsrc build, many make instances were also dying with signal 11. > > Every time I have tested the amd64/x86-64 DragonFly port, I found out this > segfault problem was a constant. > > -- > Francois Tigeot >
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:55:53PM -0600, Samuel J. Greear wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Justin C. Sherrill > wrote: > > On Thu, June 10, 2010 4:32 pm, Francois Tigeot wrote: > > > >> Installing applications from pkgsrc went well. > >> > >> Unfortunately, running Postgres is a different matter: > >> # /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/pgsql start > >> Starting pgsql. > >> seg-fault accessing address 0x58 rip=0x80077037d pid=20186 > >> p_comm=pg_ctl Segmentation fault > > > > Is this from a prebuilt binary or one that you compiled yourself? It may > > be worth building locally if you did not before. It was built locally. > > Otherwise: http://www.postgresql.org/support/submitbug > > If I had to guess I would say it is likely that this is our bug, > probably in one of the kernel sysv subsystems. Yeah, I don't believe Postgres is to blame either. During the pkgsrc build, many make instances were also dying with signal 11. Every time I have tested the amd64/x86-64 DragonFly port, I found out this segfault problem was a constant. -- Francois Tigeot
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Justin C. Sherrill wrote: > On Thu, June 10, 2010 4:32 pm, Francois Tigeot wrote: > >> Installing applications from pkgsrc went well. >> >> Unfortunately, running Postgres is a different matter: >> # /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/pgsql start >> Starting pgsql. >> seg-fault accessing address 0x58 rip=0x80077037d pid=20186 >> p_comm=pg_ctl Segmentation fault > > Is this from a prebuilt binary or one that you compiled yourself? It may > be worth building locally if you did not before. > > Otherwise: http://www.postgresql.org/support/submitbug > If I had to guess I would say it is likely that this is our bug, probably in one of the kernel sysv subsystems. Sam
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Thu, June 10, 2010 4:32 pm, Francois Tigeot wrote: > Installing applications from pkgsrc went well. > > Unfortunately, running Postgres is a different matter: > # /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/pgsql start > Starting pgsql. > seg-fault accessing address 0x58 rip=0x80077037d pid=20186 > p_comm=pg_ctl Segmentation fault Is this from a prebuilt binary or one that you compiled yourself? It may be worth building locally if you did not before. Otherwise: http://www.postgresql.org/support/submitbug
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:00:18PM -0400, Justin C. Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, June 9, 2010 4:52 am, Francois Tigeot wrote: > > I'm thinking of upgrading one server from 2GB to 6GB of memory. > > > > What is your experience with the 64-bit version ? Is it now stable enough > > to be used in a server ? > > There's rarely some difference in what stuff from pkgsrc compiles on > x86_64 vs. i386, though this is usually not because of DragonFly. A way > to check would be looking at the reports on avalon: > http://avalon.dragonflybsd.org/reports/ - look at the meta/ directory in > each report. Postgres, apache, and ruby build fine going on a quick > browse... Thanks Justin and Matt. Since you were so enthusiastic, I had to give a try. Installing applications from pkgsrc went well. Unfortunately, running Postgres is a different matter: # /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/pgsql start Starting pgsql. seg-fault accessing address 0x58 rip=0x80077037d pid=20186 p_comm=pg_ctl Segmentation fault seg-fault accessing address 0x128 rip=0x800a5037d pid=20190 p_comm=postgres Jun 10 21:32:00 test64 kernel: pid 20186 (pg_ctl), uid 1002: exited on signal 11 Jun 10 21:32:00 test64 kernel: pid 20190 (postgres), uid 1002: exited on signal 11 DragonFly version is the latest stable: v2.6.3.17.g58d915-RELEASE -- Francois Tigeot
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
On Wed, June 9, 2010 4:52 am, Francois Tigeot wrote: > I'm thinking of upgrading one server from 2GB to 6GB of memory. > > Since the regular DragonFly/i386 version will not be able to fully use it, > I'm > also considering upgrading the OS to Dragonfly/x86-64. > > The machine is mainly running Postgres, Apache and Ruby (fast-cgi) for use > with a Ruby-on-Rails application. > > What is your experience with the 64-bit version ? Is it now stable enough > to be used in a server ? There's rarely some difference in what stuff from pkgsrc compiles on x86_64 vs. i386, though this is usually not because of DragonFly. A way to check would be looking at the reports on avalon: http://avalon.dragonflybsd.org/reports/ - look at the meta/ directory in each report. Postgres, apache, and ruby build fine going on a quick browse...
Re: DragonFly 64-bit stability
:I'm thinking of upgrading one server from 2GB to 6GB of memory. : :Since the regular DragonFly/i386 version will not be able to fully use it, I'm :also considering upgrading the OS to Dragonfly/x86-64. : :The machine is mainly running Postgres, Apache and Ruby (fast-cgi) for use :with a Ruby-on-Rails application. : :What is your experience with the 64-bit version ? Is it now stable enough to :be used in a server ? : :All answers are welcome. : :-- :Francois Tigeot I think it's pretty stable. pkgbox64 has been up 44 days (since the last kernel I rebooted it w/) and it does an incremental pkgsrc bulk build as well as a snapshot build from cron every day. -Matt Matthew Dillon
DragonFly 64-bit stability
I'm thinking of upgrading one server from 2GB to 6GB of memory. Since the regular DragonFly/i386 version will not be able to fully use it, I'm also considering upgrading the OS to Dragonfly/x86-64. The machine is mainly running Postgres, Apache and Ruby (fast-cgi) for use with a Ruby-on-Rails application. What is your experience with the 64-bit version ? Is it now stable enough to be used in a server ? All answers are welcome. -- Francois Tigeot
