Re: POSIX file permission (understanding) problem?

2010-10-29 Thread jhell
On 10/29/2010 23:27, jhell wrote: > On 10/25/2010 18:28, Chuck Swiger wrote: >> chmod g+w testdir/ (as superuser, exit again) >>> >> >> ls -ld testdir >>> >> >> drwxrwx--x 2 nobody intern 512 25 Okt 23:03 testdir >>> ls -l testdir >>> total 0 >>> -rw-r- 1 nobody intern 0 25 Okt 23:03 test

Re: POSIX file permission (understanding) problem?

2010-10-29 Thread jhell
On 10/25/2010 18:28, Chuck Swiger wrote: > chmod g+w testdir/ (as superuser, exit again) >> > > ls -ld testdir >> > > drwxrwx--x 2 nobody intern 512 25 Okt 23:03 testdir >> ls -l testdir >> total 0 >> -rw-r- 1 nobody intern 0 25 Okt 23:03 testfile > >> -> Now editing with vi (as

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Rumen Telbizov
Thanks Artem, I'll upgrade to latest stable and zfs 15 tomorrow or Sunday and I'll see if that makes it any better. If not I'll also try the chmod operation below. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll report back here. Regards, Rumen Telbizov On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Artem Belevich wrote:

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Artem Belevich
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Rumen Telbizov wrote: > FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #0: Sun Sep  5 00:22:45 PDT 2010 > That's when I csuped and rebuilt world/kernel. There were a lot of ZFS-related MFCs since then. I'd suggest updating to the most recent -stable and try again. I've got another idea that

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Rumen Telbizov
Hi Artem, What's really puzzling is why GPT labels disappear in the middle of > zpool import. I'm fresh out of ideas why that would happen. > Thanks for your support anyway. Appreciated. What FreeBSD version are you running. SVN revision of the sources > would be good, but date may also work. >

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Artem Belevich
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Rumen Telbizov wrote: > You're right. zpool export tank seems to remove the cache file so import has > nothing to consult so doesn't make any difference. > I guess my only chance at this point would be to somehow manually edit > the zpool configuration, via the zpo

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:22:54PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 29/10/2010 18:17 Kostik Belousov said the following: > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:05:26PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 29/10/2010 17:53 Kostik Belousov said the following: > >>> Could it be the priming of the vm object pages

Re: Cross-build failure on sparc64 for TARGET=amd64

2010-10-29 Thread Rob Farmer
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:38, Nathaniel W Filardo wrote: > Running >> sudo make TARGET_ARCH=amd64 TARGET=amd64 DESTDIR=/usr/x86_64 -j4 buildworld > on >> FreeBSD sparcslave.priv.oc.ietfng.org 8.1-STABLE FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #2 >> r214092=9050e7b-dirty: Thu Oct 21 01:25:54 UTC 2010 >> r...@t@sparc

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread John Baldwin
On Friday, October 29, 2010 11:17:50 am Stephen Clark wrote: > Hello, > > I am having a problem getting 6.3 to boot on an intel atom mb. When it > gets to > where it should identify the drive it hangs. > > If I boot with no acpi it does the same thing. > > If I boot with safe mode it comes up a

Re: Cross-build failure on sparc64 for TARGET=amd64

2010-10-29 Thread John Baldwin
On Friday, October 29, 2010 3:38:50 pm Nathaniel W Filardo wrote: > Running > > sudo make TARGET_ARCH=amd64 TARGET=amd64 DESTDIR=/usr/x86_64 -j4 buildworld Maybe just set TARGET and not TARGET_ARCH? -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mail

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread John Baldwin
On Friday, October 29, 2010 4:20:24 pm Stephen Clark wrote: > > rr232x: RocketRAID 232x controller driver v1.02 (Jan 16 2008 04:16:21) > > hptrr: HPT RocketRAID controller driver v1.1 (Jan 16 2008 04:16:19) > > > big snip > > lo0: bpf attached > > rr232x: no controller detected. > > hptrr: no contr

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Rumen Telbizov
Artem, > If you have old copy of /boot/zfs/zpool.cache you could try use "zpool > import -c old-cache-file". > Unfortunately I don't :( I'll make a habit of creating a copy from now on! > > I don't think zpool.cache is needed for import. Import should work > without it just fine. Just remove /

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Artem Belevich
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Rumen Telbizov wrote: > The problem I think comes down to what I have written in the zpool.cache > file. > It stores the mfid path instead of the gpt/disk one. >       children[0] >              type='disk' >              id=0 >              guid=16413940568249554

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread Stephen Clark
On 10/29/2010 03:51 PM, Stephen Clark wrote: On 10/29/2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:12:29PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: On 10/29/2010 12:54 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:17:50AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: I am having a problem gettin

Cross-build failure on sparc64 for TARGET=amd64

2010-10-29 Thread Nathaniel W Filardo
Running > sudo make TARGET_ARCH=amd64 TARGET=amd64 DESTDIR=/usr/x86_64 -j4 buildworld on > FreeBSD sparcslave.priv.oc.ietfng.org 8.1-STABLE FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #2 > r214092=9050e7b-dirty: Thu Oct 21 01:25:54 UTC 2010 > r...@t@sparcslave.priv.oc.ietfng.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SLAVKERN sparc64 wi

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread Stephen Clark
On 10/29/2010 01:40 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:12:29PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: On 10/29/2010 12:54 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:17:50AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: I am having a problem getting 6.3 to boot on an intel at

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Rumen Telbizov
Hi Artem, everyone, Thanks once again for your feedback and help. Here's more information. # zpool export tank # ls /dev/gpt disk-e1:s10 disk-e1:s11 disk-e1:s12 disk-e1:s13 disk-e1:s14 disk-e1:s15 disk-e1:s16 disk-e1:s18 disk-e1:s19 disk-e1:s20 disk-e1:s21 disk-e1:s22 disk-e1:s23 disk-e1:s3 disk

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Artemiev Igor
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:06:03PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > Probably yes, but have to be careful there. > First, do vm_page_grab only for UIO_NOCOPY case. > Second, the first page is already "shared busy" after vm_page_io_start() call > in > kern_sendfile; so you might need VM_ALLOC_IGN_SBUSY

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:12:29PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: > On 10/29/2010 12:54 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:17:50AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: > >>I am having a problem getting 6.3 to boot on an intel atom mb. When > >>it gets to where it should identify the drive

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread Stephen Clark
On 10/29/2010 12:54 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:17:50AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: I am having a problem getting 6.3 to boot on an intel atom mb. When it gets to where it should identify the drive it hangs. Can you try 8.1-RELEASE or an 8.1-STABLE snapshot i

Re: safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:17:50AM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote: > I am having a problem getting 6.3 to boot on an intel atom mb. When > it gets to where it should identify the drive it hangs. Can you try 8.1-RELEASE or an 8.1-STABLE snapshot instead? I mean, you *are* using an Intel Atom system, w

safe mode

2010-10-29 Thread Stephen Clark
Hello, I am having a problem getting 6.3 to boot on an intel atom mb. When it gets to where it should identify the drive it hangs. If I boot with no acpi it does the same thing. If I boot with safe mode it comes up and identifies the drive but then starts spewing the following errors: ipfw2 i

linux_base-f10 [Was: Re: VirtualBox OpenSolaris guest becomes: portmaster]

2010-10-29 Thread Harald Weis
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 01:09:39PM +0200, Harald Weis wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 08:32:04AM -0400, Alex Goncharov wrote: > > ,--- You/Harald (Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:02:27 +0200) * > > | What else could I possibly do? > > > > | - portmaster www/opera-linuxplugins # installing linux_base-f1

RE: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Alexander Zagrebin
> > Can you reproduce the problem on your system? > > I can't reproduce it on mine. Note the resilvering was induced from > some unrelated disk swaps/tests I was performing, and ftpd is already > enabled via inetd on this system. > > What ZFS tunings have you applied to your system? Can you pro

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/10/2010 18:26 Artemiev Igor said the following: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 05:41:59PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> What svn revision of FreeBSD source tree did you test? > > r213936. Revision seems a little old. > >> Ah, I think I see what's going on. >> Either sendfile should (have an o

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Artemiev Igor
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 05:41:59PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > What svn revision of FreeBSD source tree did you test? r213936. Revision seems a little old. > Ah, I think I see what's going on. > Either sendfile should (have an option to) use VOP_GETPAGES to request data > or ZFS > mappedread s

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/10/2010 18:17 Kostik Belousov said the following: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:05:26PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 29/10/2010 17:53 Kostik Belousov said the following: >>> Could it be the priming of the vm object pages content ? >> >> Sorry, not familiar with this term. >> Do you mean pr

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:05:26PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 29/10/2010 17:53 Kostik Belousov said the following: > > Could it be the priming of the vm object pages content ? > > Sorry, not familiar with this term. > Do you mean prepopulation of vm object with valid pages? > > > Due to doub

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/10/2010 17:53 Kostik Belousov said the following: > Could it be the priming of the vm object pages content ? Sorry, not familiar with this term. Do you mean prepopulation of vm object with valid pages? > Due to double-buffering, and (possibly false) optimization to only What optimization?

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:31:21PM +0400, Alexander Zagrebin wrote: > > > I've tried the nginx with > > > disabled sendfile (the nginx.conf contains "sendfile off;"): > > > > > > $ dd if=/dev/random of=test bs=1m count=100 > > > 100+0 records in > > > 100+0 records out > > > 104857600 bytes transf

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:31:21PM +0400, Alexander Zagrebin wrote: > > > I've tried the nginx with > > > disabled sendfile (the nginx.conf contains "sendfile off;"): > > > > > > $ dd if=/dev/random of=test bs=1m count=100 > > > 100+0 records in > > > 100+0 records out > > > 104857600 bytes transf

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/10/2010 15:36 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 29/10/2010 12:04 Artemiev Igor said the following: >> Yep, this problem exists. You may workaround it via bumping up >> net.inet.tcp.sendspace up to 128k. zfs sendfile is very ineffective. I have >> made a small investigation via DTrace, it

RE: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Alexander Zagrebin
> > I've tried the nginx with > > disabled sendfile (the nginx.conf contains "sendfile off;"): > > > > $ dd if=/dev/random of=test bs=1m count=100 > > 100+0 records in > > 100+0 records out > > 104857600 bytes transferred in 5.892504 secs (17795083 bytes/sec) > > $ fetch -o /dev/null http://localh

Re: cdrtools /devel and wodim broken

2010-10-29 Thread Jakub Lach
Joerg Schilling-3 wrote: > > You seem to have a general problem with correct error reporting in SCSI > with > your kernel SCSI transport. Please try to contact the maintainer of this > driver. > Thanks for support, I have pinged him already. ragards, - Jakub Lach -- View this message in

Re: beastiality

2010-10-29 Thread Ian Smith
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Hugo Silva wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > > > This is often caused by a combination of two things being enabled > > > simultaneously: BIOS-level serial console redirection after POST, and > > > FreeBSD's serial console support. > > > > bingo! > > > > thanks > > > > r

Re: cdrtools /devel and wodim broken

2010-10-29 Thread Joerg Schilling
>Ready to start test for failing command? Enter to continue: >**> Testing for failed SCSI command. >scgcheck: Input/output error. inquiry: scsi sendcmd: retryable error >CDB: 12 00 00 FF 24 00 >status: 0x0 (GOOD STATUS) >cmd finished after 0.013s timeout 40s >--> SCSI Transpor

Re: beastiality

2010-10-29 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:31:49AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Hugo Silva wrote: > > Randy Bush wrote: > > > > This is often caused by a combination of two things being enabled > > > > simultaneously: BIOS-level serial console redirection after POST, and > > > > FreeBSD's ser

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/10/2010 16:14 Alexander Zagrebin said the following: >>> I've noticed that ZFS on 8.1-STABLE still has problems with >> sendfile. >> >> Which svn revision, just in case? > > 8.1-STABLE > The source tree was updated 2010-10-27 OK, good. >>> When accessing a file at first time the transfer

RE: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Alexander Zagrebin
> > I've noticed that ZFS on 8.1-STABLE still has problems with > sendfile. > > Which svn revision, just in case? 8.1-STABLE The source tree was updated 2010-10-27 > > When accessing a file at first time the transfer speed is > too low, but > > on following attempts the transfer speed is norma

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/10/2010 12:04 Artemiev Igor said the following: > Yep, this problem exists. You may workaround it via bumping up > net.inet.tcp.sendspace up to 128k. zfs sendfile is very ineffective. I have > made a small investigation via DTrace, it reads MAXBSIZE chunks, but map in vm > only one page (4K)

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 28/10/2010 08:57 Alexander Zagrebin said the following: > Hi! > > I've noticed that ZFS on 8.1-STABLE still has problems with sendfile. Which svn revision, just in case? > When accessing a file at first time the transfer speed is too low, but > on following attempts the transfer speed is norm

Re: beastiality

2010-10-29 Thread Hugo Silva
Randy Bush wrote: This is often caused by a combination of two things being enabled simultaneously: BIOS-level serial console redirection after POST, and FreeBSD's serial console support. bingo! thanks randy ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing li

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 6050 in 8.1-RELEASE Problems

2010-10-29 Thread Bernhard Schmidt
On Friday, October 29, 2010 10:32:52 m...@kmwhite.net wrote: > I've installed FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE on a Dell Latitude E6410. Most hardware > works just fine, but I'm having a hell of a time with the wifi. Everytime I > try to associate with an access point, my terminal replies with: > > [..] > iwn6

Re: 8.1-STABLE: zfs and sendfile: problem still exists

2010-10-29 Thread Artemiev Igor
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:57:22AM +0400, Alexander Zagrebin wrote: > Hi! > > I've noticed that ZFS on 8.1-STABLE still has problems with sendfile. > When accessing a file at first time the transfer speed is too low, but > on following attempts the transfer speed is normal. ... > I've tried ftpd a

Re: ZFS write speed

2010-10-29 Thread S . N . Grigoriev
29.10.10, 07:14, "jhell" : > On 10/28/2010 03:30, S.N.Grigoriev wrote: > > > > > > 28.10.10, 01:54, "Stefan Bethke" : > > > >> Am 27.10.2010 um 22:51 schrieb S.N.Grigoriev: > >> > >> > Hi list, > >> > > >> > I've got very low write speed using ZFS on a SATA disk. > >> > My HD

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 6050 in 8.1-RELEASE Problems

2010-10-29 Thread me
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:04:14 +0100, Bruce Cran wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:32:52 -0600 > wrote: > >> I've installed FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE on a Dell Latitude E6410. Most >> hardware works just fine, but I'm having a hell of a time with the >> wifi. Everytime I try to associate with an access po

Re: Intel PRO/Wireless 6050 in 8.1-RELEASE Problems

2010-10-29 Thread Bruce Cran
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:32:52 -0600 wrote: > I've installed FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE on a Dell Latitude E6410. Most > hardware works just fine, but I'm having a hell of a time with the > wifi. Everytime I try to associate with an access point, my terminal > replies with: > > jarvis# wpa_supplicant -i

Intel PRO/Wireless 6050 in 8.1-RELEASE Problems

2010-10-29 Thread me
I've installed FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE on a Dell Latitude E6410. Most hardware works just fine, but I'm having a hell of a time with the wifi. Everytime I try to associate with an access point, my terminal replies with: jarvis# wpa_supplicant -i iwn0 -c /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf ioctl[SIOCG80211, op 98

Re: Degraded zpool cannot detach old/bad drive

2010-10-29 Thread Artem Belevich
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Rumen Telbizov wrote: > Hi Artem, everyone, > > Thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately I already did try this > approach. > Applying -d /dev/gpt only limits the pool to the bare three remaining disks > which turns > pool completely unusable (no mfid devices