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
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
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
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 changing
: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
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
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:
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
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:
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 even
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 4.5,
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:
-
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
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
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-RELEASE was
Yes I've had the same problem. One system runs just fine with it's jails,
and another crashes habitually. It has to do with a certain jail (and
services). Our system are set up to be able to move jails between them
(great for backups and near perfect uptime), and a certain set of jails
always
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 nothing answers on the
sockets -
* 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, or if
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 nothing
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:
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 ram.
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
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
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
