From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 11 18:48:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F8016A4B3 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617FF43FA3 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:48:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: from blues.seekingfire.prv (blues.seekingfire.prv [192.168.23.211]) by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3E32D; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:48:37 -0600 (CST) Received: (from tillman@localhost) by blues.seekingfire.prv (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9C1mba00708; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:48:37 -0600 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:48:37 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20031011194837.B564@seekingfire.com> References: <20031011114819.GA54814@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20031012003402.GA32486@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20031011193836.A564@seekingfire.com> <20031012014224.GA95189@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20031012014224.GA95189@rot13.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 06:42:24PM -0700 X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers cc: freebsd-sparc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: X on sparc64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:48:39 -0000 On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 06:42:24PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 07:38:36PM -0600, Tillman Hodgson wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:34:02PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > Be aware that 4.x's NFS code doesn't like talking to sparc64 clients - > > > it causes the i386 server to double fault. 5.x as a server is > > > perfectly happy though. > > > > I have an Ultra 5 running a recent -current that uses an i386 -stable as > > it's NFS server ... I've never seen any problems with it. Is this an > > issue that is only affected via certain NFS options or is otherwise > > possible to (unknowingly) avoid? > > It only occurs under load..if you've never put heavy (I mean heavy!) > loads on the server you've probably avoided it. I was able to repeat > this on two separate networks. Load on which end? I dump all filesystems on 4 servers to the -stable box out of daily.local (thus simultaneously), which should swamp the NFS server fairly regularly. 14 out of 16 of my nfsd's show significant CPU usage, considering that my uptime is 11 days (my last -stable upgrade). I'm now somewhat nervous about the setup if you meant load on the NFS server rather than the sparc64 client :-) -T -- The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out alive. - Robert Heinlein