> It's obvious that you are running a large number of httpd's; the
Yes, we are running a lot of httpd's:
ps auxw | grep httpd | wc -l = 288
> The way to cross-check this would be to run a continuous "netstat -m",
> e.g.:
Funny you should ask :) I was already doing that. Here is the
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> 1) How do I give you an entire `ps` output from DDB ? Is there a way to
> output it to a floppy or something ? Or are you suggesting to copy down
> by hand ~1000 lines of ps output ?
Serial console + terminal program with capture.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
:questions:
:
:1) How do I give you an entire `ps` output from DDB ? Is there a way to
:output it to a floppy or something ? Or are you suggesting to copy down
:by hand ~1000 lines of ps output ?
If you have a couple of machines you can use a null-modem cable and
make the target machin
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> I made an initial change to the kernel of reducing maxusers from 512 to
> 256 - you said that 3gig is right on the border of needing extra KVA or
> not, so I thought maybe this unnecessarily high maxusers might be puching
> me "over the top". However, as long as I was chan
A few items that deserve mention, and two questions:
a) this problem occurred back when the machine had 2gigs in it - I
actually (naively) added the third gig of physical ram to try to fix the
problem.
b) another machine of mine is now exhibiting the same bahavior - it has
far fewer processes r
Well, it should be noted that there are two things going on with swap.
What I adjusted was the size of the swap_zone, which holds swblocks.
These structures hold the VM->SWAP block mappings for things that are
swapped out. The swap zone eats a lot more KVA then the radix tree
Terry,
I made an initial change to the kernel of reducing maxusers from 512 to
256 - you said that 3gig is right on the border of needing extra KVA or
not, so I thought maybe this unnecessarily high maxusers might be puching
me "over the top". However, as long as I was changing the kernel, I al
John Kozubik wrote:
> Terry, Patrick, et al,
> > For 4.5, you have to hack ldscript.i386 and pmap.h. I've posted
> > on how to do this before (should be in the archives).
>
> Actually, in 4.5 you only need to set:
>
> options KVA_PAGES=512
>
> and recompile your kernel. It looks like 4.5-RELE
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> Because I am paranoid, I like to check the state of a measurement before
> making a change and then after, to see that what I did did indeed induce a
> change ... I have this irrational fear that sometimes I make changes like
> this and nothing in fact changed, and I just d
> -
>
> So, if you are running 4.0 - 4.4, you need to edit ldscript.i386 and
> change 0xc010 to 0x801 (for a 2gig KVA), then you need to edit
> pmap.h and change the two lines I pasted above from 254 and 255 to 510 and
> 511, respectively. Finally, you need to set:
>
> options KVA_
Terry, Patrick, et al,
> > What is the procedure in 4.5-RELEASE (please say "just change
> > KVA_PAGES=260 to KVA_PAGES=512)
(snip)
> For 4.5, you have to hack ldscript.i386 and pmap.h. I've posted
> on how to do this before (should be in the archives).
Actually, in 4.5 you only need to set:
> > jump in and try it, I want to confirm what I believe to understand, I need
> > to set the KVA value in my kernel config _and_ edit those other two files
> > in the kernel source, then just recompile my kernel.
> >
> > Sound like I'm on the right track ?
>
> Yes. That's the way to do it for
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> ok. I was just looking back at a previous comment you made:
>
> > Amusingly enough, you might actually have *better* luck with a
> > lot less swap...
I meant reserve, not physical swap. I can see how it could have
been confusing in context; sorry.
> and thinking that
ok. I was just looking back at a previous comment you made:
> Amusingly enough, you might actually have *better* luck with a
> lot less swap...
and thinking that even if removing most of the swap did not _solve/mask_
the problem, at least it would be a step in the same direction as upping
KVA
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> I think I'll just decrease my swap size from 2 gigs to 1 gig - is that a
> reasonable alternative that provides the same benefit and possible
> solution to this problem ?
>
> ...since bsically 0 swap has ever been used on the machine anyway...
Not really.
The code in mac
I think I'll just decrease my swap size from 2 gigs to 1 gig - is that a
reasonable alternative that provides the same benefit and possible
solution to this problem ?
...since bsically 0 swap has ever been used on the machine anyway...
--PT
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Patrick
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> How do you increase KVA space these days ? I see that in earlier releases
> you had to edit /sys/conf/ldscript.i386 and /sys/i386/include/pmap.h and
> do all sorts of crazy stuff.
>
> What is the procedure in 4.5-RELEASE (please say "just change
> KVA_PAGES=260 to KVA_PAG
How do you increase KVA space these days ? I see that in earlier releases
you had to edit /sys/conf/ldscript.i386 and /sys/i386/include/pmap.h and
do all sorts of crazy stuff.
What is the procedure in 4.5-RELEASE (please say "just change
KVA_PAGES=260 to KVA_PAGES=512)
That's what you want me
> 1) do you allow them write access to their /dev/mem, /dev/kmem, /dev/io ?
Actually haven't yet let anyone else inside a jail with root capabilities.
Will soon though. So, no probably not, unless there's a daemon which does
just that.
> 2) does this sound like what you see? Can you still ping
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> Since all of the things you spoke of basically revolved around "you're
> running out of memory", is it possible or reasonable to think that within
> the space of 1 second, I ran through 1404 megs inactive and 28 megs free
> memory ?
>
> machine is 4.5-RELEASE with 3gigs ra
Terry,
Thanks for that informative email - just a quick reality check though (for
myself) - the last time this type of crash happened, I was running and
watching `top` on the machine - and when it froze, the `top` output froze
as well, and this was the last display on the screen:
last pid: 66
Patrick Thomas wrote:
> What it does is the userland hangs, but the kernel keeps running.
>
> When the system is crashed, I can still ping it successfully, and I can
> still open sockets (like I can open a connection to a jails httpd or sshd,
> or the sshd of the underlying server itself) but not
* Patrick Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020622 01:56] wrote:
>
> What it does is the userland hangs, but the kernel keeps running.
>
...
> I'm mostly just curious if this kind of crash (userland hung but kernel
> running) is a possible outcome of someone in a jail fiddling with those
> /dev nodes,
IL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 16:43
> Subject: (jail) problem and a (possible) solution ?
>
>
> >
> > A test server of mine running a number of jails keeps locking up - but the
> > odd thing about the lockup is that
ils
always hangs the system in this way. I'm trying to narrow it down. Do you
get a core dump or does it just hang?
Nate
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 16:43
Subject: (jail) proble
A test server of mine running a number of jails keeps locking up - but the
odd thing about the lockup is that the userland stops, but the kernel
keeps running
(sockets can be opened, but the servers never respond on them, the machine
still responds to pings, but logs show that all real activity
26 matches
Mail list logo
