At Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:56:33 +0100 (CET),
Michael Reifenberger wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote:
>
> ...
> > Do you have any timeout while the test?
> No. Not any longer.
> > I think SBP_QUEUE_LEN or maxopenings is the important parameter.
> > Can you try to change thoes va
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote:
...
> Do you have any timeout while the test?
No. Not any longer.
> I think SBP_QUEUE_LEN or maxopenings is the important parameter.
> Can you try to change thoes values?
>
The are at their defaults at the moment.
Do you want me to increase them?
By
At Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:15:38 +0100 (CET),
Michael Reifenberger wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
> ...
> > > I have improved recovery code after timeout in -current.
> > > Could you try that?
> >
> > Is scheduled for this evening.
> > Thanks so far!
> >
> ...
> > > > > - fw
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
...
> > I have improved recovery code after timeout in -current.
> > Could you try that?
>
> Is scheduled for this evening.
> Thanks so far!
>
...
> > > > - fwcontorl -g 20
> > > > - sysctl hw.firewire.sbp.max_speed=0
> > > > - change SBP_QUEUE_LEN in
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote:
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:07:05 +0900
> From: Hidetoshi Shimokawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Hidetoshi Shimokawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> FreeBSD-Current <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have improved recovery code after timeout in -current.
Could you try that?
/\ Hidetoshi Shimokawa
\/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP public key: http://www.sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~simokawa/pgp.html
At Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:28:33 +0200,
mike wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:41:59 +0900, Hidetoshi Shi
At Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:28:33 +0200,
mike wrote:
> > try some of the following:
> >
> > - fwcontorl -g 20
> > - sysctl hw.firewire.sbp.max_speed=0
> > - change SBP_QUEUE_LEN in sbp.c to 1 and rebuld module.
> > - sysctl machdep.cpu_idle_hlt=0
> > - sysctl debug.sbp_debug=1 and send me a dmesg.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:41:59 +0900, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote
> Do you get timeout only for sbp0:0:0?
> Is the other drive still working?
>
> I have no problem with concurrent accesses with `iozone -s 102400m -r
> 1024k`.
...
> try some of the following:
>
> - fwcontorl -g 20
> - sysctl
PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: -current, IBM A30p & 2 external FW-disks
>
> Do you get timeout only for sbp0:0:0?
> Is the other drive still working?
yes, no.
>
> I have no problem with concurrent accesses with `iozone -s 102400m -r
> 1024k`.
Me too when only with one
Do you get timeout only for sbp0:0:0?
Is the other drive still working?
I have no problem with concurrent accesses with `iozone -s 102400m -r
1024k`.
tty ad0 da0 da1
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s
21 360 0.00 0 0.00
Hi,
I have the following scenario:
A30p <==> disk1 <==> disk2
disk1 and disk2 are identical 200GB disks in an extarnal ICE-cube case.
My dmesg output is attached.
After creating and mounting them as UFS2 filesystems under /mnt/a /mnt/b
and starting a `iozone -s 102400m -r 1024k` in parallel unde
11 matches
Mail list logo