From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jun 16 18:19:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dt054n86.san.rr.com (dt054n86.san.rr.com [24.30.152.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F9914C03 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:19:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@gorean.org) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by dt054n86.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27086; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@gorean.org) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Studded X-Sender: doug@dt054n86.san.rr.com To: "David O'Brien" Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heavily loaded amd gets stuck In-Reply-To: <19990616180131.A54575@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, David O'Brien wrote: > > without the proto=udp option and see what kind of results I get. > > Rather than (or in addtion to) not using "proto=udp" use "proto=tcp". > The default in 3.2 is UDP, so removing the directive should not do > anything. Well, I've already done the tests, but thanks for the tip. :) Recapping, I have the following map file: /defaults type:=nfs;opts:=rw,nosuid * rhost:=IP${key};rfs:=/Space/${key} Adding to /defaults both the options "vers=2,proto=udp" yielded the kernel crash and ddb traceback I posted previously. With the above and just "proto=udp" I got the following: Xresume1() --- interrupt splx() nfs_nget() mountnfs() nfs_mount() mount() syscall() Xint0x80_syscall() The last 6 are identical in the first test, this test, and the test below. With the above map and adding only the option "vers=2" I got the following traceback: Xresume1() --- interrupt zfreei() nfs_reclaim() vclean() vgonel() getnewvnode() nfs_nget().... (last 6 same as above). If there is any more information you need, ddb commands to do, whatever just let me know. I will run a test now with the above map and add proto=tcp and see what I get. I'm only going to be at work tonight till 6:30 PDT, but (at this point) I have the Ok to work on it till it's fixed, so I can start again tomorrow morning. I am *highly* motivated to fix it since I've been pushing to use FreeBSD for several months, and now it's not working. To add insult to injury, the linux box that is my "competition" is up and running, using the amd-utils 6.0 (the same, yes?) and not having any problems. In case it matters, the box is a dual PIII-500 with a gig of ram. SMP is running fine, all the ram is recognized, completed a make world ok, etc. It's got an intel etherexpress pro 100 card running at 100 full duplex. Any other details you need, just let me know. Also, should I be considering a move to -current for this box? Is -current stable enough right now to run a fairly heavily loaded web server? If the NFS in -current is going to be doing better than what's in -stable it will be worth a little headache to change, since our structure depends on it heavily. Thank you very much for the help, Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -- Will Rogers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message