Re: Stability of 11.1S

___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:32 AM, George Mitchell > wrote: > > > On 03/21/18 04:51, Eitan Adler wrote: > > > On 19 March 2018 at 22:59, Dewayne Geraghty > > >

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:32 AM, George Mitchell wrote: > On 03/21/18 04:51, Eitan Adler wrote: > > On 19 March 2018 at 22:59, Dewayne Geraghty > > wrote: > >> [...] > >> PS Normally I would bisect, but we're converting 2 large

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On 03/21/18 04:51, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 19 March 2018 at 22:59, Dewayne Geraghty > wrote: >> [...] >> PS Normally I would bisect, but we're converting 2 large PROLOG applications >> to erlang... (prayers welcome) > [...] What next, converting a FORTH

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On 19 March 2018 at 22:59, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > Hi Eitan, > Agreed. Unfortunately all I have is that it abruptly shuts down. Both > under load (10,8,?) - during a full package rebuild (~1200 ports); and > during periods of idleness between

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:10:47AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > (Please keep me CC'd as I am not subscribed to -stable) > > I haven't seen any issues, but that means very little. Details: > > Two boxes -- one bare metal, one VPS (QEMU): > > $ uname -a > FreeBSD XXX 11.1-STABLE

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 10:50 +, Pete French wrote: > > On 20/03/2018 01:05, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > > > > We rebuild 11.1-Stable at least every two weeks.  Our build on the 7th > > Feb is in use on our development boxes, however the rebuild on 22nd > > resulted in frequent crashes and our

Re: Stability of 11.1S

(Please keep me CC'd as I am not subscribed to -stable) I haven't seen any issues, but that means very little. Details: Two boxes -- one bare metal, one VPS (QEMU): $ uname -a FreeBSD XXX 11.1-STABLE FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE #0 r330529: Tue Mar 6 11:36:04 PST 2018

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On 20/03/2018 01:05, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: We rebuild 11.1-Stable at least every two weeks.  Our build on the 7th Feb is in use on our development boxes, however the rebuild on 22nd resulted in frequent crashes and our reverting to FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE r329008.  Is anyone actually running a

Re: Stability of 11.1S

___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On 19 March 2018 at 18:05, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > We rebuild 11.1-Stable at least every two weeks. Our build on the 7th > Feb is in use on our development boxes, however the rebuild on 22nd > resulted in frequent crashes and our reverting to FreeBSD

Re: Stability of 11.1S

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:05:33PM +1100, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > We rebuild 11.1-Stable at least every two weeks.  Our build on the 7th > Feb is in use on our development boxes, however the rebuild on 22nd > resulted in frequent crashes and our reverting to FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE  > r329008.  Is

Stability of 11.1S

We rebuild 11.1-Stable at least every two weeks.  Our build on the 7th Feb is in use on our development boxes, however the rebuild on 22nd resulted in frequent crashes and our reverting to FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE  r329008.  Is anyone actually running a Stable that was built after 22nd Feb?  Could you

Re: FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE stability?

I have just upgraded two virtual machines running on ESXi. They are i386 with 256Mb of RAM and one CPU, with just a few ports installed (sudo and screen and dependencies). They don't do much job (low-traffic authoritative nameservers for a dozen of domains). I upgraded by freebsd-update. I

Re: FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE stability?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 21:01:26 +0200, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote: How stable are folks finding FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE to be? The improvements are welcome, but there have been a few troubling messages about kernel panics and VM issues on the various mailing lists. It's never clear until

FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE stability?

How stable are folks finding FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE to be? The improvements are welcome, but there have been a few troubling messages about kernel panics and VM issues on the various mailing lists. It's never clear until the release drops whether these are actual problems with the software or

Re: FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE stability?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:01:26 -0600 Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote: How stable are folks finding FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE to be? The improvements are welcome, but there have been a few troubling messages about kernel panics and VM issues on the various mailing lists. It's never clear until

Re: FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE stability?

Le Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:01:26 -0600, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net a écrit : Hello, How stable are folks finding FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE to be? The improvements are welcome, but there have been a few troubling messages about kernel panics and VM issues on the various mailing lists. It's never

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

Someone asked about getting The DL360 G8 to boot to their intel branded pci NIC, but I cannot find that email :( At any rate, we removed the Broadcom daughterboard from the system and insured that the intel PCI NIC (i350) was bootable in the BIOS. On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Rick Miller

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

Am Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:56:45 -0400 schrieb Rick Miller vmil...@hostileadmin.com: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Am Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:14:51 -0600 (MDT) schrieb Brett Glass br...@lariat.net: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

At 10:28 AM 11/4/2012, Rainer Duffner wrote: Oh - will were be an 8.4 release? That would be interesting. I'd like to see a trend toward more point versions of FreeBSD. Particularly in 9.x, because it incorporates most of the items that have been on people's wish lists. 4.11 was one of the

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

Hi! Oh - will were be an 8.4 release? That would be interesting. I'd like to see a trend toward more point versions of FreeBSD. Particularly in 9.x, because it incorporates most of the items that have been on people's wish lists. 4.11 was one of the most robust and stable releases ever,

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Oh - will were be an 8.4 release? That would be interesting. History shows that every release, since 4.x has gone to at least .4. I'd be willing to bet we will see an 8.4. The branch is still being developed.

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On Nov 2, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Am Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:34:20 -0400 schrieb Mark Saad nones...@longcount.org: On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Am Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:14:51 -0600 (MDT) schrieb Brett

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

Am Sat, 3 Nov 2012 11:06:26 -0400 schrieb Mark Saad nones...@longcount.org: Hp did a presentation at work 2 weeks ago about the g8 . Hp said you can swap out a daughter card in the 360/380/580 for nic options like broadcom 4 port gigabit nic , melenox infinbabd, intel pro1000 4 port nic ,

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Am Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:14:51 -0600 (MDT) schrieb Brett Glass br...@lariat.net: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

Am Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:14:51 -0600 (MDT) schrieb Brett Glass br...@lariat.net: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Are there issues that will have to wait until

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On 1 November 2012, at 19:14, Brett Glass wrote: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Doug Hardie responded: It appears to be for me. I had problems with 9.0 not

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On 11/01/12 22:14, Brett Glass wrote: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Are there issues that will have to wait until 9.2-RELEASE to be fixed? Opinions welcome. --Brett

Re: 9.1 stability/robustness?

I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Are there issues that will have to wait until 9.2-RELEASE to be fixed? Opinions welcome. --Brett Glass I've got 9.1-RC2 running on 2

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Are there issues that will have to wait until 9.2-RELEASE to be

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Am Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:14:51 -0600 (MDT) schrieb Brett Glass br...@lariat.net: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

Am Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:34:20 -0400 schrieb Mark Saad nones...@longcount.org: On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Rainer Duffner rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote: Am Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:14:51 -0600 (MDT) schrieb Brett Glass br...@lariat.net: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On 02/11/2012 15:57, Doug Hardie wrote: On 1 November 2012, at 19:14, Brett Glass wrote: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? It appears to be for me. I had problems

9.1 stability/robustness?

I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Are there issues that will have to wait until 9.2-RELEASE to be fixed? Opinions welcome. --Brett Glass

FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? Are there issues that will have to wait until 9.2-RELEASE to be fixed? Opinions welcome. --Brett Glass

Re: FreeBSD 9.1 stability/robustness?

On 1 November 2012, at 19:14, Brett Glass wrote: I need to build up a few servers and routers, and am wondering how FreeBSD 9.1 is shaping up. Will it be likely to be more stable and robust than 9.0-RELEASE? It appears to be for me. I had problems with 9.0 not reading CDs and rebooting

About zfs + nfs stability

to the latest 8 stable (8.1 stable I believe)? Is it really stable? 2) Are the zfs aforementioned tuning in /boot/loader.conf still necessary? 3) Is it a good idea to switch to nfsv4? Performance? Stability? and above all: 4) will I get a more stable and performant system by upgrading? Thanks in advance

Re: About zfs + nfs stability

On 08/31/2010 09:21, Giulio Ferro wrote: 1) Is it a good idea to upgrade this production system to the latest 8 stable (8.1 stable I believe)? Is it really stable? For this question alone, I can verify that it is stable to upgrade to the stable branch. Though on one hand it might be reasonable

Re: About zfs + nfs stability

believe it has anything to do with zfs. The NLM is a separate protocol from NFS. 3) Is it a good idea to switch to nfsv4? Performance? Stability? NFSv4 will provide better file locking (if you need that) imho, but is still considered experimental, so it is hard to say how well it will work

Re: wpi0 stability and acpi_hp problems

On 19/03/2010 12:35, Dominic Fandrey wrote: ... My wpi problems are more severe. I recently purchased a new battery for my notebook and to improve my battery uptime I deactivated the bluetooth device in the BIOS (HP6510b). Ever since the wlan connection is less reliable. ... Even with

wpi0 stability and acpi_hp problems

I'm running RELENG_8 (built yesterday) and have encountered problems with wpi and acpi_hp. The thing about acpi_hp is that it misses most of the hardware when activated in the loader.conf. The WLAN, BT and other sysctls are only available if I load the module after boot. My wpi problems are more

Re: Stability problems with 7-stable (after 7.1 - 7.2 - 7-stable)

Quoting Boris Samorodov b...@ipt.ru (from Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:55:44 +0300): Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org writes: Alexander Leidinger wrote: Hi, please CC me on replies. Seems you were not CCed... I'm now subscribed to stable@, thanks for forwarding this. I have a system which was at

Stability problems with 7-stable (after 7.1 - 7.2 - 7-stable)

Hi, please CC me on replies. I have a system which was at 7.1-pX. After the update to 7.2-p5 it started to exhibit deadlocks after some minutes of uptime. With 7.1 (generic kernel) it was running fine, with 7.2 generic the problems started directly. The system is now at 7-stable with a

Re: Stability problems with 7-stable (after 7.1 - 7.2 - 7-stable)

Alexander Leidinger wrote: Hi, please CC me on replies. I have a system which was at 7.1-pX. After the update to 7.2-p5 it started to exhibit deadlocks after some minutes of uptime. With 7.1 (generic kernel) it was running fine, with 7.2 generic the problems started directly. The system

Re: Multiple USB drives stability question

idle while the source providers are still reporting 100% active. Is there any tuning I should be investigating for these GEOM classes? --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Jeff Richards bsd2...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Jeff Richards bsd2...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Multiple USB drives stability question To: freebsd

Re: Multiple USB drives stability question

debug.sizeof.g_geom: 68 --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Jeff Richards bsd2...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Jeff Richards bsd2...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Multiple USB drives stability question To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 10:50 AM I am now trying to rsync large files from the 320GB gmirror

Re: Multiple USB drives stability question

Jeff, On 15 aug 2009, at 05:04, Jeff Richards wrote: (da6:umass-sim6:6:0:0): SYNCHRONIZE CACHE(10). CDB: 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... I've had lots of stability issues with USB drives until I added some quirks to prevent the SYNCHRONIZE CACHE from happening. For example: Index: cam/scsi

Multiple USB drives stability question

Is there a practical limit on the number of active USB drives with FreeBSD?  I've had stability issues using multiple USB drives as storage. My initial design goal was cheap, hot-swappable storage.  I am only using a 100MB network currently so throughput on the storage is not a problem as I

Re: Multiple USB drives stability question

. GEOM_LABEL: Label ufsid/49273a95d669d784 removed. fuse4bsd: version 0.3.9-pre1, FUSE ABI 7.8 GEOM_LABEL: Label ufsid/4a509cddbd500a7e removed. --- On Fri, 8/14/09, Jeff Richards bsd2...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Jeff Richards bsd2...@yahoo.com Subject: Multiple USB drives stability question

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:50:21AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:00:56PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: I've reverted r185756 which caused GMII access issues on some controllers. If you are

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:55:35AM +0100, Søren Schmidt wrote: On 10Dec, 2008, at 10:11 , Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Thanks for explaining me what the flags do. I'm not skilled enough to create the DMA quirks but if you could give me some patches i'll test them. Also if you have any

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:02:07AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Stopped stress testing this morning. After all the weekend testing seems the re(4) problems were fixed. No single interface up/down error. netstat -i reports no errors and everything is fine. Thanks a lot! I'm going to

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:19:19AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:02:07AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Stopped stress testing this morning. After all the weekend testing seems the re(4) problems were fixed. No single interface up/down error. netstat -i

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:50:21AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:00:56PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: I've reverted r185756 which caused GMII access issues on some controllers. If you are brave enough to try beta code, you can get latest re(4) in the

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:50:21AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:00:56PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: I've reverted r185756 which caused GMII access issues on some controllers. If

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 05:05:59AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2008-Dec-10 10:55:35 +0100, Søren Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you will not use 64bit DMA even if the chipset supports it. However I have not seen any chipsets supporting this fail, YMMV as usual :) There's a

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:57:07AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:07:19PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Also i didn't see any problem with interfaces going up and down, but that usually

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:10:45AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:57:07AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:07:19PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Also i didn't

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:00:56PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:10:45AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:57:07AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:07:19PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Digging at linux source code i've found that they do some special things for this chipset that i've been unable to find on our code. This is linux code for my chipset: 371 AHCI_HFLAGS (AHCI_HFLAG_IGN_SERR_INTERNAL | 372

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:12:26PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:58:12AM +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Digging at linux source code i've found that they do some special things for this chipset that i've been unable to find on our code. This is linux code for my chipset: 371

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On 10Dec, 2008, at 10:11 , Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Thanks for explaining me what the flags do. I'm not skilled enough to create the DMA quirks but if you could give me some patches i'll test them. Also if you have any other idea on what could i test or how can i debug this it would be

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:28:00PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:59:35AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:12:26PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Hello,

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:28:00PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:59:35AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:12:26PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Tue, Dec 09,

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

Victor Balada Diaz a écrit : Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've been trying to narrow the problem so someone more knowledgeable than me is able to fix it. This mail is an other

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:59:35AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:12:26PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've been trying to narrow the problem so someone more knowledgeable than me

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:08:40PM +, Oliver Peter wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've been

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:07:19 +0900 Pyun YongHyeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: As these seems to improve the current situation, is there any chance of merging -current driver in 7.1 before release? I think re(4) in HEAD

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:07:19PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:28:00PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:59:35AM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:01:30PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:08:40PM +, Oliver Peter wrote: On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: ... I can use GENERIC kernel again (ie, USB enabled) and so far i didn't find any problem yet.

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:18:00PM +0100, Arnaud Houdelette wrote: Victor Balada Diaz a écrit : Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've been trying to narrow the problem so someone

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On 2008-Dec-10 10:55:35 +0100, Søren Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you will not use 64bit DMA even if the chipset supports it. However I have not seen any chipsets supporting this fail, YMMV as usual :) There's a reference in wikipedia pointing to http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:08:24PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:07:19PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: [...] It seems that your controller supports MSI so you can set a tunable hw.re.msi_disable to 0 to enable MSI. With MSI you can remove

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:07:19PM +0900, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:32:25PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Also i didn't see any problem with interfaces going up and down, but that usually happen after some hours of uptime, so i'll let you know if the error

[ATA] and re(4) stability issues

Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've been trying to narrow the problem so someone more knowledgeable than me is able to fix it. This mail is an other attempt to ask a question with

Re: [ATA] and re(4) stability issues

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:52:37PM +0100, Victor Balada Diaz wrote: Hello, I got various machines[1] at hetzner.de and I've been having problems with interrupts on FreeBSD 7.0 and now FreeBSD 7.1 -BETA2 in amd64. I've been trying to narrow the problem so someone more knowledgeable than

Snaphot stability issues on 6.3

the dump. We ran 6.X for months with no stability issues, backing up nightly w/o snapshots. Took the system down to single user mode, did foreground fsck, enabled -L on dumps and the machine kinda hangs twice a week (main host seems OK but jails stop responding and can not be properly stopped

6.3 stability and freebsd-update (was: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3)

On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote: Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average more stable than 6.2. I really haven't gotten any clear impression as 6.3 has been stable for me. I've

Re: 6.3 stability and freebsd-update (was: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3)

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:34:01AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote: On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote: Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average more stable than 6.2. I really

Re: FreeBSD 6.3-stable and if_re - stability problems?

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:48:36PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: Hello! Is anybody having stability problems with if_re under FreeBSD 6.3-stable? I know about PR kern/118719[1] but it doesn't look like the problem I'm having - at least my machine doesn't panic. My machine[2] runs

Re: FreeBSD 6.3-stable and if_re - stability problems?

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:22:16 +0900 Pyun YongHyeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think re(4) in CURRENT have fixed these issues. Would you try re(4) in CURRENT? Perhaps I was being unclear; under FreeBSD 7.x (RELENG_7) re(49 works fine. It is only .3 that has problems with re(4). -- Regards,

Re: FreeBSD 6.3-stable and if_re - stability problems?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:43:12PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:22:16 +0900 Pyun YongHyeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think re(4) in CURRENT have fixed these issues. Would you try re(4) in CURRENT? Perhaps I was being unclear; under FreeBSD 7.x

FreeBSD 6.3-stable and if_re - stability problems?

Hello! Is anybody having stability problems with if_re under FreeBSD 6.3-stable? I know about PR kern/118719[1] but it doesn't look like the problem I'm having - at least my machine doesn't panic. My machine[2] runs FreeBSD 6.3-stable / amd64: [EMAIL PROTECTED] uname -a FreeBSD kg-vm.kg4.no 6.3

Re: FreeBSD 6.3-stable and if_re - stability problems?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:48:36 +0100 Torfinn Ingolfsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ouch! The machine just rebooted. Perhaps this is kern/118719 after all. Anything I can do to diagnose this problem further? forget about the reboot - it was caused by my attempt at a workaround (using a if_ural

Re: EM stability

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:26:36PM -0600, Barry Boes wrote: B After the last hang I added giant locks back in and the machine has B been up since. B B I don't have a serial console, just a graphic console. When the B machine hangs it stops replying to ethernet packets at all protocol B levels

Re: EM stability

After the last hang I added giant locks back in and the machine has been up since. I don't have a serial console, just a graphic console. When the machine hangs it stops replying to ethernet packets at all protocol levels and doesn't respond to keyboard input in any way, virtual console or

Re: EM stability

Hello Barry, On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:56:30AM -0600, Barry Boes wrote: BI see you listed on the EM stability issues list. I have a Tyan B H1000S with dual em ports on 6.1, and it won't stay up 5 minutes B without EM watchdog resets unless I use giant locks. BIs there any way you'd

Re: EM stability

ethernet ports and no problems yet. Thanks for all the hard work! Barry Gleb Smirnoff writes: Hello Barry, On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:56:30AM -0600, Barry Boes wrote: BI see you listed on the EM stability issues list. I have a Tyan B H1000S with dual em ports on 6.1

Re: EM stability

of GB via ftp and NFS over both ethernet ports and no problems yet. Thanks for all the hard work! Barry Gleb Smirnoff writes: Hello Barry, On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:56:30AM -0600, Barry Boes wrote: BI see you listed on the EM stability issues list. I have

Re: EM stability

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:28:30PM -0600, Barry Boes wrote: B B Luck ran out. Hard must press the reset button hang. No console B messages. The system was idle at the time. BIs there anything you'd like me to do to attempt to narrow down the B problem or get debugging output? I do not

Re: EM stability

On 11/10/06, Barry Boes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Luck ran out. Hard must press the reset button hang. No console messages. The system was idle at the time. Is there anything you'd like me to do to attempt to narrow down the problem or get debugging output? I do not know if the freeze

nfs/geli stability problems and file corruption

Hi on 3 different servers we had the same pronlem as below. 2 servers 6.1-STABLE and one 6.1-RELEASE security branch. 2 of the servers before hand were running without nfs and geli for months stable, the 3rd was brand new. We enabled geli encryption on loopback partitions and real partitions

Re: Stability of ICH7 sata on FreeBSD 6.1 ?

Dominic Marks wrote: Jerome Sobecki wrote: Hi all, We have here some Supermicro Superserver 5015P-TR (http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5015/SYS-5015P-TR.cfm) Those servers, with a ICH7 controler, are currently working with FreeBSD 6.1 and everything seems ok, except that it's the

Re: Stability of ICH7 sata on FreeBSD 6.1 ?

Mike Jakubik wrote: Dominic Marks wrote: Jerome Sobecki wrote: Hi all, We have here some Supermicro Superserver 5015P-TR (http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5015/SYS-5015P-TR.cfm) Those servers, with a ICH7 controler, are currently working with FreeBSD 6.1 and everything seems

Re: Stability of ICH7 sata on FreeBSD 6.1 ?

Miroslav Lachman wrote: I have same problem on ASUS RS120 with Seagate ST3250820AS/3.AAC drives (disk loses, system reboots, slow read/write speed), but I think this is drive problem - all drives has high Reallocated_Sector_Ct value in SMART (above 130 reallocated sectors after few weeks,

Stability of ICH7 sata on FreeBSD 6.1 ?

Hi all, We have here some Supermicro Superserver 5015P-TR (http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5015/SYS-5015P-TR.cfm) Those servers, with a ICH7 controler, are currently working with FreeBSD 6.1 and everything seems ok, except that it's the third time, on two different machines, that

Re: Stability of ICH7 sata on FreeBSD 6.1 ?

Jerome Sobecki wrote: Hi all, We have here some Supermicro Superserver 5015P-TR (http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5015/SYS-5015P-TR.cfm) Those servers, with a ICH7 controler, are currently working with FreeBSD 6.1 and everything seems ok, except that it's the third time, on two

  1   2   >