From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 16:09:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131E316A4E3 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:09:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cool.de (unknown [212.169.188.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A9B43D31 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:09:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from os@cool.de) Received: from p213.54.168.180.tisdip.tiscali.de ([213.54.168.180] helo=[10.0.0.55]) by mail.cool.de with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Authenticated: Oliver Schwarz) (Exim 4.05) id 1B2ffv-0005bb-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:09:47 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:09:17 +0100 From: Oliver Schwarz To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <171313165.1079312957@[10.0.0.55]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 3, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01) Subject: smbfs problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:09:58 -0000 I am running smbfs mounts on my FreeBSD 4.8 server, which cause problems from time to time. It seems that some applications (andromeda, rsync) cant access these filesystems correctly. for example this is the error message i get from rsync: --- rsync error: error in IPC code (code 14) at util.c(162) rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes read so far) rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(150) --- btw if i mount the same share via NFS it works. My guess is that some low-level IO functions are not working with smbfs as they do with other filesystem types. Please excuse my poor understanding of the subject and my crude way of describing the problem. Any help would be very appreciated. -- Der Ole From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 19:07:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC6A16A4CE for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBDE43D45 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (ce2ef3f3f20582caf3283f186d9bc5cd@adsl-67-119-53-203.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.119.53.203])i2F37Y8A002965; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:07:35 -0600 (CST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7EBC0535DC; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:07:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:07:33 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Oliver Schwarz Message-ID: <20040315030733.GA95430@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <171313165.1079312957@[10.0.0.55]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <171313165.1079312957@[10.0.0.55]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: smbfs problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:07:38 -0000 --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:09:17AM +0100, Oliver Schwarz wrote: > I am running smbfs mounts on my FreeBSD 4.8 server, which cause problems= =20 > from time to time. It seems that some applications (andromeda, rsync) can= t=20 > access these filesystems correctly. Try updating to 4.9-STABLE, which contains a number of smbfs fixes. Kris --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAVR31Wry0BWjoQKURAvZ/AKDJZTpgWx2r8+m/M9yPFylcmrYVFQCeNUzx iLfc82ivyKhBinKzYXuU/rg= =hl7N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy-- From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 06:29:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D352B16A4CF for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cool.de (unknown [212.169.188.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467FE43D31 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:29:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from os@cool.de) Received: from ole-win.ip.tiscali.net ([213.200.88.26] helo=OLE-WIN) by mail.cool.de with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Authenticated: Oliver Schwarz) (Exim 4.05) id 1B2t6G-0003nX-00; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:29:52 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:29:54 +0100 From: Oliver Schwarz To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <9157678.1079364594@OLE-WIN> In-Reply-To: <20040315030733.GA95430@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040315030733.GA95430@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.6, required 3, IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01) cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: smbfs problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:29:59 -0000 >> I am running smbfs mounts on my FreeBSD 4.8 server, which cause problems >> from time to time. It seems that some applications (andromeda, rsync) >> cant access these filesystems correctly. > > Try updating to 4.9-STABLE, which contains a number of smbfs fixes. Kris, thanks, that hit the spot, problems gone. -- Der Ole From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 14:12:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6C116A4D1; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5710643D53; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:12:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (a57b65cf24b0deb12bc9a04072feab5c@adsl-67-119-53-203.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.119.53.203])i2FMCPhO022033; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ADD0051BFB; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:12:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:12:24 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: current@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20040315221224.GA31085@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: panic: getnewvnode: free vnode isn't X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:12:27 -0000 --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline This is on an alpha -CURRENT kernel from March 6. Kris panic: getnewvnode: free vnode isn't at line 740 in file /a/asami/portbuild/alpha/src-client/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c Stack backtrace: db_print_backtrace() at db_print_backtrace+0x18 backtrace() at backtrace+0x2c __panic() at __panic+0x150 getnewvnode() at getnewvnode+0x3e0 ffs_vget() at ffs_vget+0xac ufs_lookup() at ufs_lookup+0xd90 ufs_vnoperate() at ufs_vnoperate+0x2c vfs_cache_lookup() at vfs_cache_lookup+0x37c ufs_vnoperate() at ufs_vnoperate+0x2c lookup() at lookup+0x4ec namei() at namei+0x330 lstat() at lstat+0x50 syscall() at syscall+0x36c XentSys() at XentSys+0x64 --- syscall (190) --- --- user mode --- --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAVipIWry0BWjoQKURAlb0AJwPUO/8CpweGr5w4ZQPZiPUZ9t+agCfdHxD KLX/uA9Dsl7aFS+hu6Jfb4Q= =gIoo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx-- From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 14:42:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731BE16A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194E543D1D for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:42:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2FMg9HB017571; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:42:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200403100524.i2A5OM9M002988@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20040310022555.7097420EEB@citi.umich.edu> <200403100308.i2A38PYS002421@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200403100524.i2A5OM9M002988@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:42:08 -0500 To: Garrett Wollman From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org cc: openafs-devel@openafs.org Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] OpenAFS for FreeBSD 5.2 patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:42:11 -0000 At 12:24 AM -0500 3/10/04, Garrett Wollman wrote: >< said: > >> and it seems to be working correctly. I can 'klog' to my RPI >> userid, and then poke around all my private files in AFS @rpi. >> I was also able to 'umount' /afs correctly. It's encouraging >> to see it get this far! Thanks for the extra tips. > >Once you get enough activity to start to recycle vnodes (and AFS >vcache entries) it will probably fall over pretty fast. Adding >WITNESS and DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS may make the bugs more obvious. I'm building a second machine for stress-testing this (my main maachine has too much important data on it). I also have a freebsd-sparc64 machine. Should I give this openafs a try on that, or should I just stick with the i386 platform? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 15:24:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B53C16A4CF for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:24:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from wn1.sci.kun.nl (wn1.sci.kun.nl [131.174.8.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6623243D2F for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:24:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from adridg@sci.kun.nl) Received: from wn4.sci.kun.nl [131.174.8.3] (helo=wn4.sci.kun.nl) by wn1.sci.kun.nl (8.12.10/3.67) with ESMTP id i2FNOqlQ027232; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:24:52 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:24:52 +0100 (MET) From: Adriaan de Groot To: openafs-devel@openafs.org, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] OpenAFS for FreeBSD 5.2 patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: adridg@cs.kun.nl List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:24:54 -0000 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 12:24 AM -0500 3/10/04, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >Once you get enough activity to start to recycle vnodes (and AFS > >vcache entries) it will probably fall over pretty fast. Adding > >WITNESS and DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS may make the bugs more obvious. > > I'm building a second machine for stress-testing this (my main > maachine has too much important data on it). > > I also have a freebsd-sparc64 machine. Should I give this openafs > a try on that, or should I just stick with the i386 platform? The main problem will probably be threading libraries (ie. the total lack of them in openafs for your particular platform). Since OpenAFS uses its own thread library, that poses an additional portability hurdle for the system. The word "abomination" was used in conjunction with it recently. In particular, FreeBSD-amd64 can't do OpenAFS because of the threading stuff. A port to any of the pthreads libs would be a large task but probably needs to be done sometime. [ade], who still hasn't even built his _first_ FBSD-AFS machine, but has been lurking. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 16:09:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5792E16A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP3.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.10.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAA743D1D for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:09:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cg2v@andrew.cmu.edu) Received: from SPHINX.andrew.cmu.edu (SPHINX.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.121.9]) (user=cg2v mech=GSSAPI (0 bits)) by smtp3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2G09aIe009913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:09:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:09:34 -0500 From: Chaskiel M Grundman To: openafs-devel@openafs.org Message-ID: <15300000.1079395774@sphinx.andrew.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: References: Originator-Info: login-id=cg2v; server=cyrus.andrew.cmu.edu; token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] OpenAFS for FreeBSD 5.2 patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:09:38 -0000 --On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 00:24:52 +0100 Adriaan de Groot wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >> At 12:24 AM -0500 3/10/04, Garrett Wollman wrote: > The main problem will probably be threading libraries (ie. the total lack > of them in openafs for your particular platform). Since OpenAFS uses its > own thread library, that poses an additional portability hurdle for the > system. Sparc should be supported, as afs already works on both sparc-solaris and sparc-linux. There may need to be some assembler syntax and makefile hackery to get it building. > The word "abomination" was used in conjunction with it recently. > In particular, FreeBSD-amd64 can't do OpenAFS because of the threading > stuff. A port to any of the pthreads libs would be a large task but > probably needs to be done sometime. It's not pthreads, but I do have an alternative to the existing lwp implementation that should be a whole lot more portable that what we have now. It makes use of the getcontext/makecontext/setcontext functions from unix98. The files are in the afs request tracker. (https://grand.central.org/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=1280). You will want lwp_susv2.c, lwp_private.h and lwp-opaque.patch. Apply lwp-opaque.patch, drop in lwp_private.h, and replace lwp.c using lwp_susv2.c. Lastly, edit the makefile and remove references to process.[coS] for the relevant platform(s). If you do use this code, please reply to the ticket with any successes/failures you encounter. If this code gets tested, it's likely to be folded into an actual release someday. E From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 18:52:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD62C16A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from citi.umich.edu (citi.umich.edu [141.211.133.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B147D43D2D for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:52:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rees@citi.umich.edu) Received: from citi.umich.edu (dsl093-001-248.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.1.248]) by citi.umich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABB620B6C; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:52:41 -0500 (EST) To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, openafs-devel@openafs.org From: Jim Rees In-Reply-To: Garance A Drosihn, Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:42:08 EST Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:52:41 -0500 Sender: rees@citi.umich.edu Message-Id: <20040316025241.CABB620B6C@citi.umich.edu> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] OpenAFS for FreeBSD 5.2 patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:52:42 -0000 I also have a freebsd-sparc64 machine. Should I give this openafs a try on that, or should I just stick with the i386 platform? It won't work until someone hooks up the proper lwp and does other config hacking. But it would be a good project for someone. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 22:16:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2893C16A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:16:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from meredith.dementia.org (MEREDITH.DEMENTIA.ORG [128.2.120.216]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5788043D31 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:16:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shadow@dementia.org) Received: from JOHNSTOWN.andrew.cmu.edu (JOHNSTOWN.andrew.cmu.edu [128.2.121.156]) by meredith.dementia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2G6GC314158; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:16:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:16:12 -0500 (EST) From: Derrick J Brashear X-X-Sender: shadow@johnstown.andrew.cmu.edu To: openafs-devel@openafs.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -0.349 () BAYES_30 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] OpenAFS for FreeBSD 5.2 patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:16:14 -0000 On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Adriaan de Groot wrote: > The main problem will probably be threading libraries (ie. the total lack > of them in openafs for your particular platform). Since OpenAFS uses its > own thread library, that poses an additional portability hurdle for the > system. The word "abomination" was used in conjunction with it recently. > In particular, FreeBSD-amd64 can't do OpenAFS because of the threading > stuff. A port to any of the pthreads libs would be a large task but > probably needs to be done sometime. There's an LWP wrapper around pthreads in Arla. I contributed it years ago. So, unless by "large task" you mean copying some files is hard, no. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 22:04:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED25B16A4CE for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.85.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8228543D46 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:04:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ca+envelope@esmtp.org) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha12) with ESMTP id S0000000040472D0201; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:06:17 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost)i2H66Hnx020638 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:06:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:06:17 -0800 From: Claus Assmann To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040317060617.GA23526@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: softupdates and two different MTAs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:04:59 -0000 I'm comparing the performance of sendmail 8 with sendmail 9 (called sm8 and sm9 in the following) and experienced some interesting results about disk I/O on FreeBSD; maybe someone has some explanations for these numbers? A modified iostat(8) program is used to show the number of read and write disk I/O operations. The following test was performed: a program on one machine sends 1000 mails using up to 100 concurrent connections to the MTA on a second machine running FreeBSD 4.9 (with SCSI drives) which relays the mails to a third host. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | program | FS | writes | reads | |--------------------------+------------------+---------+-------| | sm8.12.11 | UFS, softupdates | 236 | 0 | |--------------------------+------------------+---------+-------| | sm8.12.11 | UFS, no | 8100 | 1 | | | softupdates | | | |--------------------------+------------------+---------+-------| | sm9.0.0.12 | UFS, softupdates | 3500 | 4 | |--------------------------+------------------+---------+-------| | sm9.0.0.12 | UFS, no | 6300 | 0 | | | softupdates | | | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Some background: sm8 forks a process for each incoming mail which in turn also delivers the mail (DeliveryMode=background); sm9 consists of 4 communicating processes all of which are multi-threaded. Both MTAs call fsync(2) before accepting a mail. Question: why does sm8 use so few writes? Can softupdates eliminate or cluster most writes including fsync(2)? Why doesn't this work for sm9? I had the following idea why there are so many writes for sm9 compared to sm8: sm9 has only one SMTP server process and since fsync(2) is synchronous the process has to wait for it to return. In sm8 there are many processes which can proceed independently and softupdates could reorder the operations and perform a "group commit", i.e., schedule multiple fsync(2) operations together and then a group of processes can proceed. However, a simple test using 2 or 4 server processes doesn't show a significant decrease in the number of write operations. Does someone have an explanation for this behavior? TIA! From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 04:53:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14F216A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:53:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.hispeed.ch (mxout.hispeed.ch [62.2.95.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A950943D39 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 04:53:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hampi@rootshell.be) Received: from gicco.homeip.net (80-218-74-31.dclient.hispeed.ch [80.218.74.31])i2ICrebe002839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:53:41 +0100 Received: from localhost.here (idefix@gicco.homeip.net [127.0.0.1]) by gicco.homeip.net (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2ICrema000913 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:53:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hampi@rootshell.be) Received: (from idefix@localhost) by localhost.here (8.12.8p2/8.12.8/Submit) id i2ICrd4G000912 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:53:39 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.here: idefix set sender to hampi@rootshell.be using -f Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:53:39 +0100 From: Hanspeter Roth To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040318125339.GA884@gicco.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: mounting NetBSD FFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:53:43 -0000 Hello, ist it possible to mount a NetBSD FFS under FreeBSD 4.9 where the slice has sysid 169 (0xA9)? Maybe something like mount -t ufs /dev/ad1s2a /mnt ? If it is possible is write access reliable? -Hanspeter From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 05:05:15 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2693716A4CF for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.hispeed.ch (mxout.hispeed.ch [62.2.95.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C25443D3F for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:05:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hampi@rootshell.be) Received: from gicco.homeip.net (80-218-74-31.dclient.hispeed.ch [80.218.74.31])i2ID5DcY005748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:05:13 +0100 Received: from localhost.here (idefix@gicco.homeip.net [127.0.0.1]) by gicco.homeip.net (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2ID5Cma000977 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:05:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hampi@rootshell.be) Received: (from idefix@localhost) by localhost.here (8.12.8p2/8.12.8/Submit) id i2ID5CCU000976 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:05:12 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.here: idefix set sender to hampi@rootshell.be using -f Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:05:12 +0100 From: Hanspeter Roth To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040318130512.GB884@gicco.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: accessing UFS1 by FreeBSD 5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:05:15 -0000 Hello, is write access to UFS1 by FreeBSD 5.2 and fsck on UFS1 under FreeBSD 5.2 reliable? Is it still accessible for FreeBSD 4.9 after write access and fsck by FreeBSD 5.2? -Hanspeter From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 05:07:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E2216A4CF for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813CD43D2F for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmz@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (jmz@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2ID7Ibv087002 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmz@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from jmz@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i2ID7HUU086999; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmz) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200403181307.i2ID7HUU086999@freefall.freebsd.org> From: Jean-Marc Zucconi To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20040318130512.GB884@gicco.homeip.net> References: <20040318130512.GB884@gicco.homeip.net> X-Mailer: Emacs 21.3.1 Subject: Re: accessing UFS1 by FreeBSD 5.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:07:18 -0000 >>>>> Hanspeter Roth writes: > Hello, > is write access to UFS1 by FreeBSD 5.2 and fsck on UFS1 under > FreeBSD 5.2 reliable? Yes > Is it still accessible for FreeBSD 4.9 after write access and > fsck by FreeBSD 5.2? Yes -- Jean-Marc Zucconi -- PGP Key: finger jmz@FreeBSD.org [KeyID: 400B38E9] From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 13:28:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E1516A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from post.noho.co.uk (post.noho.co.uk [199.229.190.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94FB43D2D for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:28:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Arlin_J_Curtis/London/NoHo.NOHO@noho.co.uk) To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:11:11 +0000 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) From: Arlin_J_Curtis/London/NoHo.NOHO@noho.co.uk Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NoHoLon01/London/NoHo(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 03/18/2004 09:28:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: File blocked - ScanMail for Lotus Notes-->Re: Re: Re: Your document X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:28:14 -0000 ScanMail has removed an attachment during a real-time scan of the email traffic. Date: 3/18/2004 21:11:11 Virus: Blocked; File: document_4351.pif From: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org To: richarda@noho.co.uk; Action: Blocked; Scanned by ScanMail for Lotus Notes 2.5.0 with scanengine 6.150-1001 and patternfile lpt$vpn.824 From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 19 14:16:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C72916A4CE for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3071343D2F for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:16:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id i2JMGhtX037578; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:16:43 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:16:43 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Claus Assmann Message-ID: <20040319221643.GA90277@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20040317060617.GA23526@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040317060617.GA23526@zardoc.esmtp.org> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: softupdates and two different MTAs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:16:47 -0000 In the last episode (Mar 16), Claus Assmann said: > | program | FS | writes | reads | > |---------------+------------------+---------+-------| > | sm8.12.11 | UFS, softupdates | 236 | 0 | > | sm8.12.11 | UFS, no su | 8100 | 1 | > | sm9.0.0.12 | UFS, softupdates | 3500 | 4 | > | sm9.0.0.12 | UFS, no su | 6300 | 0 | > > Question: why does sm8 use so few writes? Can softupdates eliminate > or cluster most writes including fsync(2)? Why doesn't this work for > sm9? I'm not sure I understand any of those values :) 1000 mails requires at least 3000 fsyncs, doesn't it, one each for qf, df, and tf? And each fsync should write two disk blocks (inode and data). Without softupdates, that should be 12 IO/s per message: create+2*fsync+unlink, once for each of df+qf+tf. Total 12000 I/Os With softupdates, it should be 6: 2*fsync, once for each of df+qf+tf. Total 6000 I/Os So something is either not fsyncing, or there is clustering going on behind the scenes. The sm8 softupdates count is disturbingly low, even assuming good clustering. > I had the following idea why there are so many writes for sm9 > compared to sm8: sm9 has only one SMTP server process and since > fsync(2) is synchronous the process has to wait for it to return. In > sm8 there are many processes which can proceed independently and > softupdates could reorder the operations and perform a "group > commit", i.e., schedule multiple fsync(2) operations together and > then a group of processes can proceed. Theoretically possible. If the files' inodes happen to be on the same disk block, or if they are small messages and the frags happen to be in the same disk block, then an fsync() on one may automatically sync the other files for free. I don't know enough about ffs or softupdates to be able to tell from looking at the source though. You might be able to demonstrate that it's clustering by creating an fsync() wrapper that gets read and write counts before and after the real fsync() call. If you ever call fsync but the I/O counts don't change, then you know that something else synced the file already. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 19 18:25:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11D216A4CE; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca [131.104.48.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FAF43D1F; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:25:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca) Received: (from rick@localhost) by snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02166; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:25:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:25:58 -0500 (EST) From: rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca Message-Id: <200403200225.VAA02166@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca> To: nfsv4@ietf.org cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org cc: mckusick@mckusick.com cc: alfred@freebsd.org cc: tech@openbsd.org Subject: nfsv4 server beta test X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:25:51 -0000 I've just put another beta test version of my nfsv4 server up anonymous ftp at snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (131.104.48.1) in pub/nfsv4. The major change is that it has now been ported to FreeBSD5.2. Good luck with it, if you try it, rick ps: If you do try it, let me know how it goes.