> I'd start by going back to SCHED_4BSD and seeing how that affects things. ULE
> is an experimental scheduler that may produce inconsistent or undesirable
> results depending on workload.
OK, I will. And I'll follow your next advice about the tcp_inflight and Mike's
advice.
Following Nate Nie
Ian Dowse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Long writes:
>
>>You're correct that dumping is meant to be done with interrupts and task
>>switching disabled. The first thing that the umass driver is missing is
>>a working CAM poll handler. Without this, there is no way for command
>>c
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:54:56 +0300, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers
you wrote:
> Good day!
> I've obtained the following strang results with the em Ethernet interface
>speeds on a 6.1-PRERELEASE:
> Polling on:
> UDP stream to FreeBSD: 327843.84 Kbit/sec,
> TCP stream to FreeBSD: 524550.12 Kbit/
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, FreeLSD wrote:
options SCHED_ULE
I'd start by going back to SCHED_4BSD and seeing how that affects things.
ULE is an experimental scheduler that may produce inconsistent or undesirable
results depending on workload.
Robert N M Watson
__
FreeLSD wrote:
> Good day!
> I've obtained the following strang results with the em Ethernet interface
> speeds on a 6.1-PRERELEASE:
> Polling on:
> UDP stream to FreeBSD: 327843.84 Kbit/sec,
> TCP stream to FreeBSD: 524550.12 Kbit/sec.
> Polling off:
> UDP stream to FreeBSD: 740409.38 K
We have an older server, running 5.4-RELEASE-p8 and used primarily
for email, which hangs every couple of weeks. The hang seems to
be in the disk I/O system. Based on the times of the hangs, the
triggering event seems to be running dump.
We have a serial console set up, I broke to the debugger a
Good day!
I've obtained the following strang results with the em Ethernet interface
speeds on a 6.1-PRERELEASE:
Polling on:
UDP stream to FreeBSD: 327843.84 Kbit/sec,
TCP stream to FreeBSD: 524550.12 Kbit/sec.
Polling off:
UDP stream to FreeBSD: 740409.38 Kbit/sec,
TCP stream to FreeBS
On 2006-02-21 10:23, Divacky Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:42:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>On 2006-02-20 18:27, Divacky Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> hi
>>>
>>> is is possible to set global LDFLAGS as its possible with CFLAGS?
>>
>> Yes, but why would
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:42:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2006-02-20 18:27, Divacky Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hi
> >
> > is is possible to set global LDFLAGS as its possible with CFLAGS?
>
> Yes, but why would you want to do this? It is very likely to create
> dependencie
9 matches
Mail list logo
