From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Mar 17 9:10:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D51B14D26 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:10:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) id JAA52953; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:10:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:10:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199903171710.JAA52953@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Cy Schubert - BCSC Open Systems Group Subject: Re: kern/6858: inetd in realloc(): warning: junk pointer, too low to make sense. Reply-To: Cy Schubert - BCSC Open Systems Group Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/6858; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Cy Schubert - BCSC Open Systems Group To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, jher@io.com, cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca, cy@uumail.gov.bc.ca Cc: Subject: Re: kern/6858: inetd in realloc(): warning: junk pointer, too low to make sense. Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:59:04 -0800 I see this on 3.1R after tripwire runs, which uses 25MB VM on a machine with 32MB installed (high scan rate and paging rate of 5-8 pages/second while tripwire is running). Under 2.2.8R i had no problems, however I do notice that processes do take more VM under 3.1R, e.g. exmh2 takes 40MB of VM under 3.1R using an ELF version of wish8.0 while it took 9MB under 2.2.8R and under 3.1R using an a.out version of wish8.0. I also noticed that while tripwire runs under 2.2.8R, the scan rate averaged at ~ 700 pages/sec., while under 3.1R the paging rate is 2000-3000 pages/sec. The problem is probably in VM somewhere. -- Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Open Systems Group Internet: cschuber@uumail.gov.bc.ca ITSD Cy.Schubert@gems8.gov.bc.ca Government of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message