Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 04:28:10AM +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
Has anyone else noticed files missing when browsing Samba shares of ZFS
directories?
>>> http://unix.d
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 04:28:10AM +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
> >> Has anyone else noticed files missing when browsing Samba shares of ZFS
> >> directories?
> >
> > http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
>> Has anyone else noticed files missing when browsing Samba shares of ZFS
>> directories?
>
> http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2007-11/msg00501.html
This sounds like my problem excep
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:18:32PM +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed files missing when browsing Samba shares of ZFS
> directories?
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2007-11/msg00501.html
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2007-08/
Hello list,
Has anyone else noticed files missing when browsing Samba shares of ZFS
directories? Using both windows explorer and smbclient the file does
not show up in a directory listing but can be opened by typing the file
name by hand. The file is of course listed when doing an ls on the
shar
On Nov 30, 2007 1:03 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jack Vogel wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2007 11:21 PM, Vitezslav Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> my configuration is
> >>
> >> kernel GENERIC
> >>
> >> em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
> >> options=18b
>
Unga wrote:
>
> Mine is also an ATI Radeon card:
> ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 PRO] rev 1
> Chipset ATI Radeon 9200PRO 5960 (AGP)
>
> I cannot ssh to the machine while its freezes. It says
> 'no route to host'. That is, the machine is completely
> dead.
>
> The other thing is, FreeB
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 05:59:26AM +0100, Claus Guttesen wrote:
> > Thing is that GENERIC as installed out of the box should not take two
> > minutes
> > to delete a gig of files off a 15k RPM SAS drive! especially not
> > when identical hardware with half the number of processor cores only takes
--- Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Tom Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:42:35 +
> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 03:28 -0800, Unga wrote:
> > > --- Michael Proto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unga wrote:
> > > >
Ivan Voras wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Check dmesg for the APIC numbers corresponding to the CPUs you want to
disable and add the corresponding entries to /boot/loader.conf, e.g.:
hint.lapic.1.disable="1"
hint.lapic.3.disable="1"
hint.lapic.5.disable="1"
hint.lapic.7.disable="1"
Hi,
Do you
Pete French wrote:
Well, the "1" is a boolean so those values will probably also work, but
the point was to disable apics 1,3,5 and 7 on the left hand side :) In
your case those are also valid but sometimes they are other numbers.
yes, I worked that out about 5 minutes after posting and makin
> Well, the "1" is a boolean so those values will probably also work, but
> the point was to disable apics 1,3,5 and 7 on the left hand side :) In
> your case those are also valid but sometimes they are other numbers.
yes, I worked that out about 5 minutes after posting and making myself
look f
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:44 -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> This may be a silly question, but have you tried reducing the RAM on the
> quad core machine to 4GB so the machines match in that respect as well?
>
> I seem to recall a thread a while back about someone who had slowdowns in a
> certain situat
Pete French wrote:
Yes, if the claim is that the hardware is absolutely identical apart
from one having two quad-core CPUs instead of two dual-core, the next
step is to disable half of the CPUs and confirm that the problem goes away.
Just comming back to this today, will do a side by side comp
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Check dmesg for the APIC numbers corresponding to the CPUs you want to
> disable and add the corresponding entries to /boot/loader.conf, e.g.:
>
> hint.lapic.1.disable="1"
> hint.lapic.3.disable="1"
> hint.lapic.5.disable="1"
> hint.lapic.7.disable="1"
Hi,
Do you know how
> > Yes, if the claim is that the hardware is absolutely identical apart
> > from one having two quad-core CPUs instead of two dual-core, the next
> > step is to disable half of the CPUs and confirm that the problem goes away.
>
> Just comming back to this today, will do a side by side compare of t
Pete French wrote:
>> Have you checked that your dir hash isn't suffering due to lack of memory
>> this can have a marked impact on seemingly trivial things like this as
>> could silly things like the RAID card being installed in a different slot.
>
> RAID card is onboard on these things - how wou
At 07:10 AM 11/30/2007, Pete French wrote:
> Check dmesg for the APIC numbers corresponding to the CPUs you want to
> disable and add the corresponding entries to /boot/loader.conf, e.g.:
O.K., I did that, got it running on 4 CPU's only, and the problem
is still there - so it's not the number of
On Fri, November 30, 2007 13:10, Pete French wrote:
>> Check dmesg for the APIC numbers corresponding to the CPUs you want to
>> disable and add the corresponding entries to /boot/loader.conf, e.g.:
>
> O.K., I did that, got it running on 4 CPU's only, and the problem
> is still there - so it's not
> Check vfs.ufs.dirhash_mem is not close to vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem if it is
> and only most used boxes this seems to be the case increase maxmem.
Its nowhere near - and the dirhash_maxmem and dirhash_minsize are the same
on both boxes.
> Seems this could either do with an auto tune option or a la
sysctl -a |grep dirhash
Check vfs.ufs.dirhash_mem is not close to vfs.ufs.dirhash_maxmem if it is
and only most used boxes this seems to be the case increase maxmem.
Seems this could either do with an auto tune option or a larger max by
default in today's day and age.
Regards
Steve
-
> Check dmesg for the APIC numbers corresponding to the CPUs you want to
> disable and add the corresponding entries to /boot/loader.conf, e.g.:
O.K., I did that, got it running on 4 CPU's only, and the problem
is still there - so it's not the number of CPU's after all. Which
is good in a way in
> Yes, if the claim is that the hardware is absolutely identical apart
> from one having two quad-core CPUs instead of two dual-core, the next
> step is to disable half of the CPUs and confirm that the problem goes away.
Just comming back to this today, will do a side by side compare of the dmes
On 30/11/2007, Jan Srzednicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most of the relevant sockets (that is, between the two host mentioned)
> are in the ESTABLISHED state (200-400 of those). Only 20-40 are in
> TIME_WAIT state (these tend to be from a more ephemeric POP3 service). Most
> of the EADDRINUSE h
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:42:59AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Jan Srzednicki wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:22:08AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> How can I get any usable information from netstat? It shows a bunch of
>> connections, of course, but since connect(2) failed, I have no id
Alexey Popov wrote:
Hi
Kris Kennaway wrote:
One more patch which may or may not help is:
http://www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/namei_rwlock.patch
(may also require porting since it was against an older version of
7.0-CURRENT). When I have tested this in the past it was a
performance loss f
Hi
Kris Kennaway wrote:
One more patch which may or may not help is:
http://www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/namei_rwlock.patch
(may also require porting since it was against an older version of
7.0-CURRENT). When I have tested this in the past it was a performance
loss for reasons that I thi
Jack Vogel wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:21 PM, Vitezslav Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
my configuration is
kernel GENERIC
em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=18b
ether 00:19:d1:0f:1c:18
inet 86.49.14.16 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 86.49.14.255
Claus Guttesen wrote:
Thing is that GENERIC as installed out of the box should not take two minutes
to delete a gig of files off a 15k RPM SAS drive! especially not
when identical hardware with half the number of processor cores only takes
eleven seconds to do the same job. Something is wrong som
On Nov 29, 2007 11:21 PM, Vitezslav Novy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my configuration is
>
> kernel GENERIC
>
> em0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
> options=18b
> ether 00:19:d1:0f:1c:18
> inet 86.49.14.16 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 86.49.14.255
> me
30 matches
Mail list logo
