TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:26 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:26 - /usr/bin
TB --- 2010-07-09 05:09:28 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-07-09 05:09:28 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2010-07-09 05:09:28 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 05:09:46 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 05:09:46 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:24 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:24 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:22 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:22 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for arm/arm
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:12 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-07-09 04:25:12 - /usr/bin/csu
On 08-07-2010 22:09, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> These freezes and panics are due to the driver using a spin mutex
>> instead of a
>> regular mutex for the per-file descriptor event_mtx. If you patch the
>> driver
>> to change it to be a regular mutex I think
On 8. 7. 2010 22:04, Peter Jeremy wrote / napísal(a):
> On 2010-Jul-05 13:50:52 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>
>> As ZFS v15 is already being used in the Solaris 10 enterprise world, we
>> can consider it well-tested.
>>
> So we know if the ZFS in Solaris 10 includes any fixes that aren't
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
These freezes and panics are due to the driver using a spin mutex instead of a
regular mutex for the per-file descriptor event_mtx. If you patch the driver
to change it to be a regular mutex I think that should fix the problems.
Can you give an example?
On 2010-Jul-05 13:50:52 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>As ZFS v15 is already being used in the Solaris 10 enterprise world, we
>can consider it well-tested.
So we know if the ZFS in Solaris 10 includes any fixes that aren't
publicly available?
>Direct link to the patch:
>http://people.freebsd.org
Hi Martin,
If 15 is the only one that will make it into FBSD9 then obviously
that's better than doing nothing.
I'll contact my folks on the ZFS dev team at Sun to pull the DB
enhancements and related ZFS versions.
-J
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> as for
08.07.2010 22:13, Super Biscuit ?:
--- On *Thu, 7/8/10, Alex Keda //* wrote:
From: Alex Keda
Subject: WARNING: Non-uniform processors.
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 4:42 PM
When booting, I have strange message.
All work OK (process
--- On Thu, 7/8/10, Alex Keda wrote:
From: Alex Keda
Subject: WARNING: Non-uniform processors.
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 4:42 PM
When booting, I have strange message.
All work OK (processor with hyperthreading, but system seems it as 1 CPU ).
lissyara-gp# d
TB --- 2010-07-08 16:25:02 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-07-08 16:25:02 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2010-07-08 16:25:02 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-07-08 16:25:23 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-07-08 16:25:23 - /usr
When booting, I have strange message.
All work OK (processor with hyperthreading, but system seems it as 1 CPU ).
lissyara-gp# dmesg
Copyright (c) 1992-2010 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of Califo
ixed this and the mtree problem, as well. I hope this one
now works properly on amd64:
http://kovesdan.org/patches/iconv-20100708.diff
Gabor
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubsc
On 07/08/10 01:11, V. T. Mueller, Continum wrote:
> Eric Masson schrieb:
>> Martin Matuska writes:
>>> We decided not to go with v16 - the feature difference for FreeBSD
>>> between v15 and v16 is zero.
>>> (v16 = Common Multiprotocol SCSI Target (COMSTAR) for ISCSI export of
>>> ZVOLS - we don't
On 07/08/10 11:06, Martin Matuska wrote:
>
> Regarding performance, e.g. my PHP web servers with codebase in ZFS
> yield 15-20% more req/s with v15 patch (as compared to v14).
Good enough reason for me (this is most of my workload, too), get it in
as soon as you're able :)
_
On Friday, July 02, 2010 12:55:38 pm David Naylor wrote:
> On Friday 02 July 2010 14:57:35 René Ladan wrote:
> > 2010/7/2 Yuri Pankov :
> > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:46:41AM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure this has been reported before but I am experience crashe
Hi,
Martin Matuska wrote:
For people just wanting to try the new features, I am providing mfsBSD
ISO's with ZFS-on-root install (don't forget the -V 15 flag to the
"zfsinstall" command):
http://mfsbsd.vx.sk/iso/8.1rc2-zfsv15-v3.iso (without symbols, 99 MB)
http://mfsbsd.vx.sk/iso/8.1rc2-zfsv15-v
Hi Jason,
as for me, I am ready to stand for the stability of my v15 upgrade, it
has been discussed with our zfs team, and we also see it as a kind of a
starting point.
We generally have two options:
a) push ZFS v15 now
- it has been already disussed
- we can continue with incremental upgrades th
Hi Martin,
If you're using it for NFS then that can be a good feature, but I see a lot
more folks complaining about lack of removal for log devices.
We've been using ZFS on OpenSolaris for DB servers since 2006 and OpenSolaris
bits are very stable. In most cases we've found ZFS under OSol to b
User and group quotas is no important enhancement?
We have to see the whole thing from a stability perspective as well -
OpenSolaris has by far less testing than Solaris 10.
Oracle cannot afford to feed his enterprise customers (and these are not
few) with untested code.
Dňa 7. 7. 2010 20:30, Sam
22 matches
Mail list logo
