From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 20 11:35:59 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFE4106568E for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:35:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from mx0.gid.co.uk (mx0.gid.co.uk [194.32.164.250]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB268FC73 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gidgate.gid.co.uk (80-46-130-69.static.dsl.as9105.com [80.46.130.69]) by mx0.gid.co.uk (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7KBZvUH078437; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:35:57 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from [192.168.0.240] (host-84-9-193-12.dslgb.com [84.9.12.193] (may be forged)) by gidgate.gid.co.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7KBZqoO070843; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:35:52 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Message-Id: From: Bob Bishop To: "Daniel O'Connor" In-Reply-To: <200908202036.20367.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:35:46 +0100 References: <200908201204.24914.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <5A8B04B7-6110-4D00-8727-3311DC935019@gid.co.uk> <200908201920.06795.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200908202036.20367.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Blocked process X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:35:59 -0000 On 20 Aug 2009, at 12:06, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Bob Bishop wrote: >>> On 20 Aug 2009, at 08:25, Daniel O'Connor wrote: >>>> This is running in 6.2 ish using 4BSD, I was under the impression >>>> ULE wasn't very stable in 6.2. >>>> >>>> I could probably try it though... >>> >>> Hmm. ISTR having similar problems around the 6.1-2 era. You might >>> try 6.4 if that's possible for you. >> >> Someone is going to visit it, but if I can't solve it remotely I'll >> probably just update it to 7.2 or so. > > What sort of problems did you have BTW? Things like ls on the console might take several seconds to respond when the box didn't seem to be very busy (but wasn't idle, maybe serving a little NFS). It wasn't the shell getting swapped out or anything else obvious. This was on SMP, not using X. The problem went away with 6.4R (had to stay with 6.x for unrelated reasons). -- Bob Bishop rb@gid.co.uk