On 10-Oct-10, at 4:16 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
More convenient? :-)
Sorry, I always use "make buildword, etc", works 100% for me and I
find it very
convenient.
--
Andriy Gapon
I mean some thing like freebsd-update for FreeBSD-STABLE monthly
snapshots. You are right, update from sources is
on 09/10/2010 17:55 Andriy Bakay said the following:
> Do you know any more convenient way (except make buildword, etc.) to
> upgrade/update several boxes to STABLE on regular basis? Something like
> freebsd-update or maybe some process, tips, tricks, etc?
More convenient? :-)
Sorry, I always use
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 03:32:54AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Pieter de Goeje, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Note that I use a single filesystem for / and /usr. Obviously if
> those are separate filesystems more NFS exports and mount commands
> are necessary. Before the first run all immutable flags
On Saturday 09 October 2010 16:55:35 Andriy Bakay wrote:
> Do you know any more convenient way (except make buildword, etc.) to
> upgrade/update several boxes to STABLE on regular basis? Something like
> freebsd-update or maybe some process, tips, tricks, etc?
>
> Thanks.
Here's how I do it:
1) Bu
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Andriy Bakay wrote:
> Do you know any more convenient way (except make buildword, etc.) to
> upgrade/update several boxes to STABLE on regular basis? Something like
> freebsd-update or maybe some process, tips, tricks, etc?
>
Can you not top-post please?
Probably
Do you know any more convenient way (except make buildword, etc.) to
upgrade/update several boxes to STABLE on regular basis? Something like
freebsd-update or maybe some process, tips, tricks, etc?
Thanks.
On 2010-10-08, at 6:11, Pete French wrote:
>> Ok. But how stable (production ready) the
> Ok. But how stable (production ready) the FreeBSD-8-STABLE is? What is your
> opinion?
I am running 8-STABLE from 27th September on all our ptoduction
machines (from webservers to database servers to the company mail
server) and it is fine. I am going to update again over the next
few days, as
on 08/10/2010 01:24 Andriy Bakay said the following:
> Ok. But how stable (production ready) the FreeBSD-8-STABLE is? What is your
> opinion?
I use it all the time :-) (And head too).
In general, and this opinion is not only my own, the best FreeBSD "release" is
the latest stable branch.
--
And
Ok. But how stable (production ready) the FreeBSD-8-STABLE is? What is your
opinion?
On 2010-10-07, at 18:12, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 08/10/2010 00:04 Andriy Bakay said the following:
>> Understood, but is it possible to apply "local" ZFS+UFS related
>> changes? Because STABLE will bring all d
on 08/10/2010 00:04 Andriy Bakay said the following:
> Understood, but is it possible to apply "local" ZFS+UFS related
> changes? Because STABLE will bring all deltas which was accumulated
> since RELEASE and I really concern about stability of this box (which is
> router/firewall/mail server). Oth
Understood, but is it possible to apply "local" ZFS+UFS related
changes? Because STABLE will bring all deltas which was accumulated
since RELEASE and I really concern about stability of this box (which is
router/firewall/mail server). Other people depend on it.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:20:18 +0300,
on 07/10/2010 21:47 Andriy Bakay said the following:
> I expressed myself incorrectly. Sorry. :-(
>
> Do you Andriy :-) or anybody else from list(s) have more info how to
> fix or work around this issue?
First, I recommend to try to upgrade to the recent stable/8.
--
Andriy Gapon
__
I expressed myself incorrectly. Sorry. :-(
Do you Andriy :-) or anybody else from list(s) have more info how to
fix or work around this issue?
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:29:54 +0300, Andriy Gapon
wrote:
> on 07/10/2010 18:46 Andriy Bakay said the following:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Do we have any new inform
on 07/10/2010 18:46 Andriy Bakay said the following:
> Hi All,
>
> Do we have any new information about this issue (fixes, work arounds etc.)?
> Any
> input will be highly useful.
Yes, _we_ do. Where have you been? :-)
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-st
Hi All,
Do we have any new information about this issue (fixes, work arounds
etc.)? Any input will be highly useful.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-July/057682.html
I am experiencing kind of same problem on FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p1 i386
2G RAM.
Thanks,
Andriy
___
on 12/07/2010 12:39 Peter Jeremy said the following:
> /*
> - * If pages are needed or we're within 2048 pages
> - * of needing to page need to reclaim
> + * If we're within 2048 pages of pagedaemon start, reclaim...
> */
> - if (vm_pages_needed || (vm_paging_target() > -2048))
> + if (vm_pages_
On 2010-Jul-12 19:38:18 +1000, Peter Jeremy
wrote:
>I have been using the attached arc.patch1 based on a patch written by
>Artem Belevich (see http://pastebin.com/ZCkzkWcs )
>for about a month. I have had reasonable success with it (and junked
>my cronjob) but have managed to wedge my system a
On 2010-Jul-11 11:25:12 -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
>But when almost all of the memory is taken by disk cache (of non-zfs
>file system), ZFS disks start threshing like mad and the write
>throughput goes down in 1-digit MB/second.
It can go a lot lower than that...
Yes, this is a known problem. Th
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 02:45:46PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 02:12:13PM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> > vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma is already 0. It looks to be the default, as I never
> > touched it.
>
> Okay, just checking, because the default did change at one point
And ch
On 07/11/2010 23:08, Freddie Cash wrote:
> Search the archives for the -stable, -current, and -fs mailing lists
> from the past 3 months. There are patches floating around to fix
> this. The ZFS code that monitors memory pressure currently only
> monitors the "free" amount, and completely ignores
Search the archives for the -stable, -current, and -fs mailing lists
from the past 3 months. There are patches floating around to fix
this. The ZFS code that monitors memory pressure currently only
monitors the "free" amount, and completely ignores the "inact" and
other "not actually in use" amou
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 02:45:46PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 02:12:13PM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 01:47:57PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:25:12AM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> > > > This is on clean FreeBSD 8.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 02:12:13PM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 01:47:57PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:25:12AM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> > > This is on clean FreeBSD 8.1 RC2, amd64, with 4GB memory.
> > >
> > > The closest I found by Googli
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 01:47:57PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:25:12AM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> > This is on clean FreeBSD 8.1 RC2, amd64, with 4GB memory.
> >
> > The closest I found by Googling was this:
> > http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=9935
> >
>
...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Chadwick
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:48 PM
To: Richard Lee
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Serious zfs slowdown when mixed with another file system
(ufs/msdosfs/etc.).
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:25:12AM -0700, Ri
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:25:12AM -0700, Richard Lee wrote:
> This is on clean FreeBSD 8.1 RC2, amd64, with 4GB memory.
>
> The closest I found by Googling was this:
> http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=9935
>
> And it talks about all kinds of little tweaks, but in the end, the
> only th
This is on clean FreeBSD 8.1 RC2, amd64, with 4GB memory.
The closest I found by Googling was this:
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=9935
And it talks about all kinds of little tweaks, but in the end, the
only thing that actually works is the stupid 1-line perl code that
forces the kern
27 matches
Mail list logo
