From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 27 11:06:59 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EA35D7A for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D501AA2 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0RB6wow013234 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:06:58 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s0RB6w1w013232 for freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:06:58 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:06:58 GMT Message-Id: <201401271106.s0RB6w1w013232@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: gnats set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:06:59 -0000 Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o kern/183139 xen [xen] [patch] ifconfig options on xn0 lost after xen v o kern/180788 xen [xen] [panic] XEN PV kernel 9.2-BETA1 panics on boot o kern/180403 xen [xen] Problems with GENERIC and XENHVM kernels with Xe o kern/180402 xen [xen] XEN kernel does not load in XenClient 4.5.5 o kern/179814 xen [xen] mountroot fails with error=19 under Xen on 9-STA o kern/176471 xen [xen] xn driver crash on detach o kern/176053 xen [xen] [patch] i386: Correct wrong usage of vsnprintf() o kern/175954 xen [xen] XENHVM xn network driver extreme packet loss dur o kern/175822 xen [xen] FreeBSD 9.1 does not work with Xen 4.0 o kern/175757 xen [xen] [patch] xen pvhvm looses keyboard input from VNC o kern/171873 xen [xen] xn network device floods warning in dmesg o kern/171118 xen [xen] FreeBSD XENHVM guest doesn't shutdown cleanly o kern/166174 xen [xen] Problems ROOT MOUNT ERROR o kern/165418 xen [xen] Problems mounting root filesystem from XENHVM o kern/164630 xen [xen] XEN HVM kernel: run_interrupt_driven_hooks: stil o kern/164450 xen [xen] Failed to install FreeeBSD 9.0-RELEASE from CD i o kern/162677 xen [xen] FreeBSD not compatible with "Current Stable Xen" o kern/161318 xen [xen] sysinstall crashes with floating point exception o kern/155468 xen [xen] Xen PV i386 multi-kernel CPU system is not worki o kern/155353 xen [xen] [patch] put "nudging TOD" message under boot_ver o kern/154833 xen [xen]: xen 4.0 - DomU freebsd8.2RC3 i386, XEN kernel. o kern/154473 xen [xen] xen 4.0 - DomU freebsd8.1 i386, XEN kernel. Not o kern/154472 xen [xen] xen 4.0 - DomU freebsd8.1 i386 xen kernel reboot o kern/154428 xen [xen] xn0 network interface and PF - Massive performan o kern/153674 xen [xen] i386/XEN idle thread shows wrong percentages o kern/153672 xen [xen] [panic] i386/XEN panics under heavy fork load o kern/153620 xen [xen] Xen guest system clock drifts in AWS EC2 (FreeBS o kern/153477 xen [xen] XEN pmap code abuses vm page queue lock o kern/153150 xen [xen] xen/ec2: disable checksum offloading on interfac o kern/152228 xen [xen] [panic] Xen/PV panic with machdep.idle_mwait=1 o kern/144629 xen [xen] FreeBSD 8-RELEASE XEN pvm networking doesn't wor o kern/143398 xen [xen] FreeBSD 8-RELEASE XEN pvm networking doesn't wor o kern/143340 xen [xen] FreeBSD 8-RELEASE XEN pvm networking doesn't wor f kern/143069 xen [xen] [panic] Xen Kernel Panic - Memory modified after f kern/135667 xen ufs filesystem corruption on XEN DomU system f kern/135421 xen [xen] FreeBSD Xen PVM DomU network failure - netfronc. f kern/135178 xen [xen] Xen domU outgoing data transfer stall when TSO i p kern/135069 xen [xen] FreeBSD-current/Xen SMP doesn't function at all f i386/124516 xen [xen] FreeBSD-CURRENT Xen Kernel Segfaults when config o kern/118734 xen [xen] FreeBSD 6.3-RC1 and FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 4 fail to b 40 problems total. From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 15:33:26 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92D5020C for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596AD1696 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s0TFSela046026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:40 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:28:40 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: FreeBSD 10.0-R as Xen 'guest' - clarification? Message-ID: <18819F918745D984B618D518@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:33:26 -0000 Hi, With FreeBSD 10 being out now (Great!) - GENERIC appears now has everything needed for Xen to run in PVHVM for amd64. The man page for xen (man 4 xen) states you should have: options NO_ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES options NO_ADAPTIVE_RWLOCKS options NO_ADAPTIVE_SX In the kernel as well - when running under Xen - these (obviously) aren't in the GENERIC kernel, should they still be used for FreeBSD 10? And for 'xen tools' - we're still correct to install the port of 'sysutils/xe-guest-utilities' - correct? Thanks, -Karl From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 19:24:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A659AB93 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780F61D1E for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD1120DAD for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:24:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to :references; s=smtpout; bh=qZ1WixOWQ8MJGqmqNxGgYjoXrXE=; b=WdbaA 4NZXhM0mgB4pIbXs0T/teU/zVAMoa0I5DQnXeTu/t9rU65MS/i2R7106tPZQtiB6 mFN4vWA5rTNWi3zJTbnWnmuMi85ekVRw9i+HoOl+bI/GswrXUcuhknVGR95Sj8x/ HzPRGWv5A7lkRrJovucKjeLuT+FR05Aaw5YekM= Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99) id C9B7311E5FB; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:24:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1391023465.31000.76904101.03DD98B3@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: 8BAaVYqo2gt0l9g1eL/UZOE0/VVDw7ysegK0QYGhqSPh 1391023465 From: Mark Felder To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-1b692d69 Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.0-R as Xen 'guest' - clarification? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:24:25 -0600 In-Reply-To: <18819F918745D984B618D518@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> References: <18819F918745D984B618D518@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:24:27 -0000 On Wed, Jan 29, 2014, at 9:28, Karl Pielorz wrote: > > And for 'xen tools' - we're still correct to install the port of > 'sysutils/xe-guest-utilities' - correct? > Yes, I have a few VMs deployed working marvellously with 10.0-RELEASE and sysutils/xe-guest-utilities From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 22:45:33 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1C2D571; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ezwind.net (bobby.ezwind.net [199.188.211.146]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C6D1ECE; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jayPC by ezwind.net (MDaemon PRO v9.6.5) with ESMTP id 36-md50000155608.msg; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:45:16 -0600 X-Spam-Processed: ezwind.net, Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:45:16 -0600 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled) X-Authenticated-Sender: jwest@ezwind.net X-MDRemoteIP: 24.182.187.37 X-Return-Path: prvs=1106a3e382=jwest@ezwind.net X-Envelope-From: jwest@ezwind.net From: "Jay West" To: "'Mark Felder'" , References: <18819F918745D984B618D518@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <1391023465.31000.76904101.03DD98B3@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1391023465.31000.76904101.03DD98B3@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: RE: FreeBSD 10.0-R as Xen 'guest' - clarification? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:47:03 -0600 Message-ID: <001101cf1d44$080b1780$18214680$@ezwind.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFYV0eZZEoGK8UYdonkgOFxcvuhCwL6shbfm3IDfIA= Content-Language: en-us X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:45:33 -0000 I guess I could try it and see.... but is it also true that we no longer have to do the dance with removing the cd/dvd drive and fixing fstab for ad0 device naming convention? And what about the NO_ADAPTIVE _* kernel options - not needed? Jay West, President EZwind.net 11 The Pines Court, Suite B Chesterfield, MO 63141 P: 314-781-1800 F: 314-558-9284 E: jwest@ezwind.net W: www.ezwind.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-xen@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Mark Felder Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:24 PM To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10.0-R as Xen 'guest' - clarification? On Wed, Jan 29, 2014, at 9:28, Karl Pielorz wrote: > > And for 'xen tools' - we're still correct to install the port of > 'sysutils/xe-guest-utilities' - correct? > Yes, I have a few VMs deployed working marvellously with 10.0-RELEASE and sysutils/xe-guest-utilities _______________________________________________ freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 22:50:09 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D552E891; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BAE1F08; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:50:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from study64.tdx.co.uk (study64.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.231]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s0TMnw1O092845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:49:59 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:49:58 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Jay West , "'Mark Felder'" , freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD 10.0-R as Xen 'guest' - clarification? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001101cf1d44$080b1780$18214680$@ezwind.net> References: <18819F918745D984B618D518@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <1391023465.31000.76904101.03DD98B3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <001101cf1d44$080b1780$18214680$@ezwind.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:50:09 -0000 --On 29 January 2014 16:47:03 -0600 Jay West wrote: > I guess I could try it and see.... but is it also true that we no longer > have to do the dance with removing the cd/dvd drive and fixing fstab for > ad0 device naming convention? I use gpt anyway so that fortunately has never really hurt us. > And what about the NO_ADAPTIVE _* kernel options - not needed? That's the bit I'm interested in - whether they're still needed or not... Our previous Xen guests use the xe-guest-utilities - I was just making sure they're still needed / current now that FBSD 10 is out. -Karl From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 30 14:10:46 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A027C68 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6337104D for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s0UEAh32094977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:10:44 GMT Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:10:43 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD 10 under XenServer 6.2(SP1) - Higher load average? Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:10:46 -0000 I've just installed a couple of FreeBSD 10-R instances on our Xen pool. The load averages on these machines seems to run higher for an idle box, than FreeBSD 9.x did e.g. 10.0-R (amd64 GENERIC): last pid: 4219; load averages: 0.31, 0.23, 0.12 up 0+00:07:45 14:04:08 15 processes: 1 running, 14 sleeping CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle Mem: 16M Active, 15M Inact, 44M Wired, 20M Buf, 1893M Free Swap: 2046M Total, 2046M Free A 9.2-STABLE (amd64 XENHVM) instance on the same XenServer: last pid: 76440; load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 up 2+15:07:27 14:05:10 22 processes: 1 running, 21 sleeping CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle Mem: 13M Active, 128M Inact, 91M Wired, 59M Buf, 237M Free Swap: 494M Total, 494M Free Both have xe-guest-utilities installed. The second box is actually technically busier than the first (as it's routing traffic between it's interfaces - admittedly, not much). But the load average on 10.0-R never settles to zero (like it did for 9.x) Just a bit confused as to if the user, nice, system and interrupt times are zero - how can the LA be >0? Anyone else noticed this? - I know an LA of 0.31 isn't the end of the world - but it's a bit of a jump on 0.00... -Karl From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 30 16:02:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C77CD9 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from positron.dckd.nl (positron.dckd.nl [IPv6:2a02:898:62:f6::63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CF9419EC for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.12.167] (wlan.dagstuhl.de [192.76.146.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by positron.dckd.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A45A0F800A; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:02:45 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10 under XenServer 6.2(SP1) - Higher load average? From: Jeroen van der Ham In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:02:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <35CC68FA-730F-4B74-94B8-EB612F7AF77E@dckd.nl> References: To: Karl Pielorz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:02:56 -0000 Hi, I=92ve noticed this already back in June: = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-June/001639.html Nothing really came out of the discussion there, but it doesn=92t really = seem worrying or have much an impact on performance though. Jeroen. On 30 Jan 2014, at 15:10, Karl Pielorz wrote: >=20 > I've just installed a couple of FreeBSD 10-R instances on our Xen = pool. The load averages on these machines seems to run higher for an = idle box, than FreeBSD 9.x did >=20 > e.g. 10.0-R (amd64 GENERIC): >=20 > last pid: 4219; load averages: 0.31, 0.23, 0.12 up 0+00:07:45 = 14:04:08 > 15 processes: 1 running, 14 sleeping > CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > Mem: 16M Active, 15M Inact, 44M Wired, 20M Buf, 1893M Free > Swap: 2046M Total, 2046M Free >=20 >=20 > A 9.2-STABLE (amd64 XENHVM) instance on the same XenServer: >=20 > last pid: 76440; load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 up 2+15:07:27 = 14:05:10 > 22 processes: 1 running, 21 sleeping > CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > Mem: 13M Active, 128M Inact, 91M Wired, 59M Buf, 237M Free > Swap: 494M Total, 494M Free >=20 >=20 > Both have xe-guest-utilities installed. >=20 > The second box is actually technically busier than the first (as it's = routing traffic between it's interfaces - admittedly, not much). >=20 > But the load average on 10.0-R never settles to zero (like it did for = 9.x) >=20 > Just a bit confused as to if the user, nice, system and interrupt = times are zero - how can the LA be >0? >=20 > Anyone else noticed this? - I know an LA of 0.31 isn't the end of the = world - but it's a bit of a jump on 0.00... >=20 > -Karl > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 30 16:14:32 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EBEF161 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:14:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30551ADD for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s0UGEKdW007129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:14:21 GMT Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:14:20 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Jeroen van der Ham Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10 under XenServer 6.2(SP1) - Higher load average? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35CC68FA-730F-4B74-94B8-EB612F7AF77E@dckd.nl> References: <35CC68FA-730F-4B74-94B8-EB612F7AF77E@dckd.nl> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:14:32 -0000 --On 30 January 2014 17:02 +0100 Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > Hi, > > I've noticed this already back in June: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-June/001639.html > > Nothing really came out of the discussion there, but it doesn't really > seem worrying or have much an impact on performance though. Ok, thanks for the reply & link - I mainly noticed it because we graph the load average, and it looks out of place with all the other boxes - guess I'll just have to learn to live with it, Regards, -Karl