Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On 13 February 2013, at 22:45, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:10:36PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:37 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:00:59AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:29:53PM +0700, Eug

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

I don't know if this provides any benefit, but I just shut down all the VPSs on that server, so that all the 'noise' is removed from the ps listing, which I've attached … On 2013-02-13, at 9:31 PM, Marc Fournier wrote: > > Note that checking the console, there are no errors pertaining to

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:10:36PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:37 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:00:59AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:29:53PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > >> > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie ??

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

Note that checking the console, there are no errors pertaining to this on it … On 2013-02-13, at 9:26 PM, Marc Fournier wrote: > > On 2013-02-13, at 3:54 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > >>> >> The pid that is in "T" state for the "ps auxlH". > > Different server, last kernel update on Jan 22nd

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

On 2013-02-13, at 3:54 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: >> > The pid that is in "T" state for the "ps auxlH". Different server, last kernel update on Jan 22nd, https process this time instead of du last time. I've attached: ps auxlH ps auxlH of just the processes that are in TJ state (6 httpd

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:37 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:00:59AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:29:53PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie ??: >> > > Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 - openldap slapd lockups, mutex problems

On 22/01/2013 10:55:48, Adam McDougall wrote: > On 01/22/13 05:19, Kai Gallasch wrote: > > Hi. > > > > (Im am sending this to the "stable" list, because it maybe kernel related.. > > ) > > > > On 9.1-RELEASE I am witnessing lockups of the openldap slapd daemon. > > > > The slapd runs for some da

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:00:59AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:29:53PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie ??: > > > Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.1 system has the > > > following interface: > > > > > > msk

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:01:32PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote: > > > > On 13 February 2013, at 02:29, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > > > > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie ??: > > >> Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a Fre

Re: 9.1-RELEASE AMD64 crash under VBox 4.2.6 when IO APIC is disabled

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >> The simple answer that I have deduced is that APIC is MANDATORY for >> AMD64 machines and they won't run otherwise? This is why generic AMD64 >> install fails when no APIC is enabled in the VBox? > > No, it is not quite like that. x86 machin

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

Marc Fournier wrote: > On 2013-02-13, at 14:50 , Rick Macklem wrote: > > > He does get the odd error reported by nfs_getpages() and I don't > > think we've isolated why yet. The error is 13 (EACCES), but jhb@ > > thought it might be because of the bug he fixed where the krpc > > reported EACCES f

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

On 2013-02-13, at 15:16 , Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:50:13PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: >> I got it resent from him. I've attached it to this post, just in case you >> are interested in taking a look at it. > > I do not see the voffset wchains surprising. All of the

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:50:13PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > I got it resent from him. I've attached it to this post, just in case you > are interested in taking a look at it. I do not see the voffset wchains surprising. All of them seems to occur in the multithreading process. The usual reaso

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

On 2013-02-13, at 14:50 , Rick Macklem wrote: > He does get the odd error reported by nfs_getpages() and I don't > think we've isolated why yet. The error is 13 (EACCES), but jhb@ > thought it might be because of the bug he fixed where the krpc > reported EACCES for the EINTR case. I don't think

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:50:39PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Marc Fournier wrote: > > > Just reset server, so any further details will have to be 'next > > > time' > > > ??? but, just did a csup and am rebuilding ??? the following three > > > files > > > were modif

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote: > > On 13 February 2013, at 02:29, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie ??: > >> Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.1 system has the > >> following interface: > >> > >> msk0: flags=884

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On 13 February 2013, at 02:29, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie пишет: >> Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.1 system has the >> following interface: >> >> msk0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 >> >> options=c011b >> ether 00:11:2f:2a:c7:03 >>

Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:50:39PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > Marc Fournier wrote: > > Just reset server, so any further details will have to be 'next time' > > ??? but, just did a csup and am rebuilding ??? the following three files > > were modified since last build: > > > > grep nfs /tmp/outp

Re: sysctl -a causes kernel trap 12

On 02/12/2013 12:22, Henri Hennebert wrote: > On 01/19/2013 06:58, Brandon Gooch wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Xin Li wrote: >> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> On 01/18/13 12:50, Brandon Gooch wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Xin Li >>>

Re: 9.1-RELEASE AMD64 crash under VBox 4.2.6 when IO APIC is disabled

On Monday, February 11, 2013 4:34:37 pm CeDeROM wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:06 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:16:16 pm CeDeROM wrote: > >> Hey :-) I have just noticed that booting installation media for > >> FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE AMD64 from ISO bootonly under Virt

Re: re(4) problems with GA-H77N-WIFI

YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 08:27:55PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > re0: CMD 0x0c > > re0: link state changed to UP > > re0: link state changed to DOWN > > re1: link state changed to UP > > re1: link state changed to DOWN > > re1: CMD 0x0c > > re1: link state changed

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

Hello Jeremy :-) Thanks for your constructive critics :-) "Me too" is also important because it shows we do no hallucinate and the video shows the problem is real so we try to get common denominator :-) :-) I will be back from delegation this weekend and I will provide more useful data from both

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:30:53PM +0100, CeDeROM wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote: > > It has something to do with the drive. I've just connected my external drive > > to the Intel controller and copied some GB of data around without > > performance > > impact

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

Guys can you please check if you have HAL daemon running? When I switched it off my system got some hickups but is far more responsive.. maybe this is another cause? -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:29:53PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie ??: > > Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.1 system has the > > following interface: > > > > msk0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > options=c011b > > ether 00:1

Re: ix? / Intel(R) PRO/10GbE

- Original Message - From: "Teske, Devin" On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Daniel Braniss wrote: > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Daniel Braniss wrote: > > > I finally got a 10G card that is recognized by FreeBSD (9.1-stable): > > ... > > ix0: port > > 0xecc0-0xecdf mem 0xd9e8-0xd9ef,0xd9ff8000-

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Christian Gusenbauer wrote: > It has something to do with the drive. I've just connected my external drive > to the Intel controller and copied some GB of data around without performance > impacts! So my new WDC drive works on both the JMicron and the Intel > contr

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:58:11 CeDeROM wrote: > I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us > to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC > configuration. It was also slow in 9.0 I guess, this is why I have > switched from Ext2 to UFS2 to get some

Re: Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

13.02.2013 17:25, Doug Hardie пишет: > Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.1 system has the > following interface: > > msk0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > > options=c011b > ether 00:11:2f:2a:c7:03 > inet 10.0.1.199 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.0.1.255 >

Unusual TCP/IP Packet Size

Monitoring a tcpdump between two systems, a FreeBSD 9.1 system has the following interface: msk0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=c011b ether 00:11:2f:2a:c7:03 inet 10.0.1.199 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.0.1.255 inet6 fe80::211:2fff:fe2a:c703%msk0 prefixl

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, CeDeROM wrote: > I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us > to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC > configuration. Sorry, this is not exactly true - this happens on both Intel i5 equipment and AMD PhenomII x6 e

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

I am not sure if this is the case of external drive, it only helped us to figure out that problem is with writing to ICH SATA - WDC configuration. It was also slow in 9.0 I guess, this is why I have switched from Ext2 to UFS2 to get some speedup, so things are lets say acceptable for the Atari fan

Re: 9.1 AMD64 multitasking efficiency low

I have two WD's a 1TB and a 2TB. Upgraded to 9.1 three days ago and don't think it is any worse than 9.0. I find things slow down if two things are trying to access the drive at the same time and when I do get some swapping it gets unbearable. One thing that always annoyed me was the security scan