On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:21:00PM +0300, Paul wrote:
>
> It seems that a lot of CPU resources are spend when trying to get exclusive
> lock on file from multiple processes concurrently. By multiple i mean
> hundreds.
> It seems that there's an initial cost of fcntl() call. Each process that
>
It seems that a lot of CPU resources are spend when trying to get exclusive
lock on file from multiple processes concurrently. By multiple i mean hundreds.
It seems that there's an initial cost of fcntl() call. Each process that tries
to lock the file consumes some amount of CPU and cools down.
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 2:50 AM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
>
>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 15:08, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Thanks, I will watch out for the MFC and test.
>
> I've been running for a day or so after the MFC, and CPU loads are WAY down.
> Plus, the cache issues I had haven't reappeared either.
On Sep 11, 2013, at 15:08, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Thanks, I will watch out for the MFC and test.
I've been running for a day or so after the MFC, and CPU loads are WAY down.
Plus, the cache issues I had haven't reappeared either.
I need to bang on it some more, but for now it seems great.
Lars
d setting
nfsrc_tcpnonidempotent = 0; as explained below.
rick
> ---
> Mark saad | mark.s...@longcount.org
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Rick Macklem
> wrote:
>
> > Lars Eggert wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm seeing extremely high CPU usage withss
Thanks, I will watch out for the MFC and test.
Lars
On Sep 11, 2013, at 13:54, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm seeing extremely high CPU usage withssh-st the new nfsd:
>>
>> PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C
Rick
Would this affect 9.2-RCn ?
---
Mark saad | mark.s...@longcount.org
On Sep 11, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm seeing extremely high CPU usage withssh-st the new nfsd:
>>
>> PID USERNAME PRI NICE
Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing extremely high CPU usage withssh-st the new nfsd:
>
> PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU
> COMMAND
> 2280 root 1020 9932K 1376K *nfs_c 0 320:11 100.00%
> nfsd{nfsd: service}
>
Hi,
I'm seeing extremely high CPU usage withssh-st the new nfsd:
PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
2280 root 1020 9932K 1376K *nfs_c 0 320:11 100.00% nfsd{nfsd:
service}
2280 root 1020 9932K 1376K CPU77 319:47 100.00%
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
>> It's a bummer. If you can build your own kernel cherry-picking
>> following revisions may help with long-term stability:
>> r218429 - fixes original overflow causing CPU hogging by l2arc feeding
>> thread. It will keep you up and running f
- Original Message -
From: "Artem Belevich"
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation there Artem, we currently can't use 8-STABLE
due to the serious routing issue, seem like every packet generates a
RTM_MISS routing packet to be sent, whi
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
> Thanks for the confirmation there Artem, we currently can't use 8-STABLE
> due to the serious routing issue, seem like every packet generates a
> RTM_MISS routing packet to be sent, which causes high cpu load.
>
> Thread: "Re: serious pack
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Steven Hartland
wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Mickaël Maillot"
>
>
>
>> same problem here after ~ 30 days with a production server and 2 SSD Intel
>> X25M as L2.
>> so we update and reboot the 8-STABLE server every month.
>
> Old thread but also see
- Original Message -
From: "Artem Belevich"
No, there was no PR.
L2arc CPU hogging after ~24 days was fixed in r218180 in -HEAD and was
MFC'ed to 8-stable in r218429 early in February '11.
If you're using 8-RELEASE, upgrading to 8-STABLE would be something to
consider as there were
- Original Message -
From: "Mickaël Maillot"
same problem here after ~ 30 days with a production server and 2 SSD Intel
X25M as L2.
so we update and reboot the 8-STABLE server every month.
Old thread but also seeing this on 8.2-RELEASE so looks like this
may still be an issue.
In o
same problem here after ~ 30 days with a production server and 2 SSD Intel
X25M as L2.
so we update and reboot the 8-STABLE server every month.
2010/11/17 Christer Solskogen
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Christer Solskogen
> wrote:
> > Will try to reboot server now to se if that has any i
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Christer Solskogen
wrote:
> Will try to reboot server now to se if that has any impact.
It seems to have solved it. At least temporary.
--
chs,
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailm
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Christer Solskogen
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Christer Solskogen
> wrote:
>
>
> Yesterday I installed 8.1-RELEASE on another machine, made a zpool and
> added the same usb device as cache. That machine does not have same
> issue as my other machine
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Christer Solskogen
wrote:
Yesterday I installed 8.1-RELEASE on another machine, made a zpool and
added the same usb device as cache. That machine does not have same
issue as my other machine.
--
chs,
___
freebsd-sta
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> Since you're running 8.1-RELEASE, can you please test this issue on
> RELENG_8 (8.1-STABLE) and see if it exists there?
>
Sure, I could do that. 8.2-RELEASE isn't that far away, is it? But I
think that Alexander should get the necessary in
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> sysctl -a | grep vfs.zfs.arc
> sysctl -a | grep vm.kmem
> sysctl kstat.zfs.misc.arcstats
>
$ sysctl -a | grep vfs.zfs.arc
vfs.zfs.arc_meta_limit: 1342177280
vfs.zfs.arc_meta_used: 1319657696
vfs.zfs.arc_min: 671088640
vfs.zfs.arc_max: 536
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Alexander Leidinger
wrote:
> Quoting Christer Solskogen (from Tue, 16 Nov
> 2010 14:00:48 +0100):
>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Alexander Leidinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you measure that nothing is read or written to it?
>>>
>>
>> I used zpool iostat -
Quoting Christer Solskogen (from Tue,
16 Nov 2010 14:00:48 +0100):
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Alexander Leidinger
wrote:
How do you measure that nothing is read or written to it?
I used zpool iostat -v
"zpool iostat" (without -v) does not show cache filling writes to the
cache
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:53:57PM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Ollivier Robert
> wrote:
> > According to Christer Solskogen:
> >> See, that is why I think it is a ZFS issue. Because I did that.
> >> I created a UFS filesystem on the same usb stick. Mounted i
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Ollivier Robert
wrote:
> According to Christer Solskogen:
>> See, that is why I think it is a ZFS issue. Because I did that.
>> I created a UFS filesystem on the same usb stick. Mounted it and did a
>> "dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file".
>> The systemload goes +0.6 ins
On 16 November 2010 13:15, Christer Solskogen
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>> You can easily test it - use the stick as a simple disk device with UFS and
>> see how much CPU does it take simply to talk to the device.
>
> See, that is why I think it is a ZFS issue
According to Christer Solskogen:
> See, that is why I think it is a ZFS issue. Because I did that.
> I created a UFS filesystem on the same usb stick. Mounted it and did a
> "dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file".
> The systemload goes +0.6 instead if +10.3.
Do not forget that everything that is read/writ
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Alexander Leidinger
wrote:
> How do you measure that nothing is read or written to it?
>
I used zpool iostat -v
> Please check with
> gstat -f '^$'
> if there are really no reads/writes to the device (please replace
> with the name of your USB device, e.g. da0)
Quoting Christer Solskogen (from Tue,
16 Nov 2010 13:15:32 +0100):
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
You can easily test it - use the stick as a simple disk device with UFS and
see how much CPU does it take simply to talk to the device.
See, that is why I think it is a
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:15:32PM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
> > You can easily test it - use the stick as a simple disk device with UFS and
> > see how much CPU does it take simply to talk to the device.
>
> See, that is why I think
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> You can easily test it - use the stick as a simple disk device with UFS and
> see how much CPU does it take simply to talk to the device.
See, that is why I think it is a ZFS issue. Because I did that.
I created a UFS filesystem on the same u
On 11/16/10 08:16, Christer Solskogen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Brian Reichert wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:50:50PM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote:
My load on my i7 920 is certainly higher when I add a 8GB usb stick as
a ZFS cache device.
USB 1.0? 2.0? Dunno even if tha
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Brian Reichert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:50:50PM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote:
>> My load on my i7 920 is certainly higher when I add a 8GB usb stick as
>> a ZFS cache device.
>
> USB 1.0? 2.0? Dunno even if that would make a difference...
>
This is
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:50:50PM +0100, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> My load on my i7 920 is certainly higher when I add a 8GB usb stick as
> a ZFS cache device.
USB 1.0? 2.0? Dunno even if that would make a difference...
--
Brian Reichert
55 Crystal Ave. #286
My load on my i7 920 is certainly higher when I add a 8GB usb stick as
a ZFS cache device.
It seems to use about 10% system load - If I remove the cache device
it drops about 10%. Anyone else seeing this?
With cache device:
CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 10.3% system, 0.0% interrupt, 91.5% idle
Me
2009/10/21 Igor Sysoev :
[...]
/metoo, 8.0-RC2
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 05:36:55PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2009/10/21 Igor Sysoev :
> > Hi,
> >
> > for some reason in 8.0 top always shows 0% CPU usage for intr kernel
> > process and active interrupt thread, "irq19 bge0" in my case.
> >
> >
2009/10/21 Igor Sysoev :
> Hi,
>
> for some reason in 8.0 top always shows 0% CPU usage for intr kernel
> process and active interrupt thread, "irq19 bge0" in my case.
>
> 8-0 RC1 top -PS:
>
> CPU 0: 27.8% user, 0.0% nice, 7.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 65.0% id
Yes, something is wrong (8.0-RC2):
last pid: 7327; load averages: 0.31, 0.53, 0.55up 0+03:51:35 14:36:22
81 processes: 5 running, 60 sleeping, 16 waiting
CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.4% interrupt, 99.6% idle
CPU 1: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 26.7% system, 0.0% interrup
Hi,
for some reason in 8.0 top always shows 0% CPU usage for intr kernel
process and active interrupt thread, "irq19 bge0" in my case.
8-0 RC1 top -PS:
CPU 0: 27.8% user, 0.0% nice, 7.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 65.0% idle
CPU 1: 3.0% user, 0.0% nice, 2.3% system, 7.1% inter
Hello Mike,
Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 9:32:13 PM, you wrote:
>>Also, I believe there was a report from another user who saw similar
>>issues with em(4), and found that disabling MSI fixed the storm in
>>question. I believe you can disable MSI/MSIX by placing the following
>>in /boot/loader.conf
At 02:06 PM 3/19/2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 06:53:36PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Charlie Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# vmstat -i
> > interrupt total rate
> > irq1: atkbd0 12
gt;> I have to report, that I have a very strange cpu usage by system (as
>> the `top' reports).
> You haven't mentioned what exactly you think is strange
> in your top(1) output. I think it looks pretty normal
> under the given circumstances.
What do you mean by &quo
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 06:53:36PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Charlie Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# vmstat -i
> > interrupt total rate
> > irq1: atkbd0 12 0
> > irq16: ohci0
Charlie Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
It's preferable to send mail as a real user, not as root,
for various reasons.
> I have to report, that I have a very strange cpu usage by system (as
> the `top' reports).
You haven't mentioned what exactly you
Hello,
I have to report, that I have a very strange cpu usage by system (as
the `top' reports). The given box does not currently run any threaded
applications (only lighttpd and php-fcgi with 80 children, maybe 100
reqs/s), but I can see the same behavior on almost identical machine
whi
FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE i386
with a custom kernel including the wlan_* stuff, ath, ath_hal, and
ath_rate_sample. It is a station using WPA2-PSK with AES-CCMP. The
access point is also a FreeBSD machine with an ath(4) card.
During periods of high CPU usage, the
rx failed 'cuz of PHY err
ing FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE i386
> with a custom kernel including the wlan_* stuff, ath, ath_hal, and
> ath_rate_sample. It is a station using WPA2-PSK with AES-CCMP. The
> access point is also a FreeBSD machine with an ath(4) card.
>
> During periods of high CPU usage, the
>
including the wlan_* stuff, ath, ath_hal, and ath_rate_sample.
It is a station using WPA2-PSK with AES-CCMP. The access point is also a
FreeBSD machine with an ath(4) card.
During periods of high CPU usage, the
rx failed 'cuz of PHY err
OFDM timing
fields of the athstats o
On Mon 2006-10-23 (21:15), Tore Lund wrote:
> I have an XP 2200 in a normal ATX box with no extra fans. I have to
> change thermal paste about once a year. Even so, I monitor the
> temperature closely in the summertime and increase fan speed whenever
> necessary. So there is a chance that your c
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:39:58PM +0200, gareth wrote:
[snip]
>
> On Mon 2006-10-23 (18:57), Roland Smith wrote:
> > Forgot the thermal paste between the CPU and the fan?
> > Overclocked the CPU?
>
> nope ;) i built this machine 3 years ago i think, whenever the 2600+'s
> came out. it's only bee
gareth wrote:
>
> On Mon 2006-10-23 (18:57), Roland Smith wrote:
>> Forgot the thermal paste between the CPU and the fan?
>> Overclocked the CPU?
>
> nope ;) i built this machine 3 years ago i think, whenever the 2600+'s
> came out. it's only been giving trouble in the past few months.
I have an
On Mon 2006-10-23 (18:56), Oliver Fromme wrote:
> It shouldn't change anything. The nice level will not
> reduce the amount of work that your CPU is doing, it might
> only shift that amount between processes.
ah ok.
> Depending on the type of your CPU (which you didn't tell
> us), it might be po
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 06:23:52PM +0200, gareth wrote:
> hi, i'm on FreeBSD 6.1, with a problematic cpu - it seems
> to be overheating and shutting the system down when running
> intensive jobs, at the moment i can't even finish compiling
> the mysql-server in ports. i've tried running the make wi
gareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi, i'm on FreeBSD 6.1, with a problematic cpu - it seems
> to be overheating and shutting the system down when running
> intensive jobs, at the moment i can't even finish compiling
> the mysql-server in ports. i've tried running the make with
> an increased
gareth wrote:
hi, i'm on FreeBSD 6.1, with a problematic cpu - it seems
to be overheating and shutting the system down when running
intensive jobs, at the moment i can't even finish compiling
the mysql-server in ports. i've tried running the make with
an increased nice level, but that doesn't see
In response to gareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> hi, i'm on FreeBSD 6.1, with a problematic cpu - it seems
> to be overheating and shutting the system down when running
> intensive jobs, at the moment i can't even finish compiling
> the mysql-server in ports. i've tried running the make with
> an incr
hi, i'm on FreeBSD 6.1, with a problematic cpu - it seems
to be overheating and shutting the system down when running
intensive jobs, at the moment i can't even finish compiling
the mysql-server in ports. i've tried running the make with
an increased nice level, but that doesn't seem to change
much
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Feb 28), Jeff Behl said:
as reported in bug: bin/60385
this is still occurring in almost all of our systems, even those at
stable, and is pretty major issue. any known progress on this? we're
running ibm e325 servers.
FreeBSD www3 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5
In the last episode (Feb 28), Jeff Behl said:
> as reported in bug: bin/60385
>
> this is still occurring in almost all of our systems, even those at
> stable, and is pretty major issue. any known progress on this? we're
> running ibm e325 servers.
>
> FreeBSD www3 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5.3-STA
as reported in bug: bin/60385
this is still occurring in almost all of our systems, even those at
stable, and is pretty major issue. any known progress on this? we're
running ibm e325 servers.
FreeBSD www3 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE #1: Tue Feb 15 10:09:17 PST
2005[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/u
Forwarded from freebsd-multimedia@, seemed interesting.
--
,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org
\u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
--- Begin Message ---
Hello
After i s
Non thread process will show fine.
Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Riexinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:48 AM
Subject: FreeBSD 5.3 - named 0.00% CPU usage
Hi,
on 2 different machines (same hardware) wit
Hi,
on 2 different machines (same hardware) with FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE, named
is reporting 0.00% cpu usage in top. But on the cpu states, there is
always activity and named is the only process that consumes much cpu
time. Other processes show cpu usage well in top. Is that a
common/known
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Ken Menzel wrote:
> Hi,
>Strange problem, I have seen once in a while. I get no CPU usage
> and no IDLE usage either! Sytem is OK right after boot and then stops
> telling me CPU usage. Anyone have any ideas/guesses? System runs
> perfectly except f
65 matches
Mail list logo
