From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 5 15:28:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C3237B401 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 15:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dsl-mail.kamp.net (mail.kamp-dsl.de [195.62.99.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 645804400F for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 15:28:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from me@farid-hajji.de) Received: (qmail 14636 invoked by uid 505); 5 Jul 2003 22:28:42 -0000 Received: from me@farid-hajji.de by dsl-mail by uid 502 with qmail-scanner-1.14 (spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:. Processed in 0.130055 secs); 05 Jul 2003 22:28:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reverse-213-146-116-200.dialin.kamp-dsl.de) (213.146.116.200) by dsl-mail.kamp.net with SMTP; 5 Jul 2003 22:28:42 -0000 From: Farid Hajji To: Lowell Gilbert Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:29:00 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <200307051728.24681.me@farid-hajji.de> <44brw8g26e.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <44brw8g26e.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307060029.00866.me@farid-hajji.de> cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Weird vmstat -s stats X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: me@farid-hajji.de List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:28:45 -0000 > > "vmstat -s" shows on one of my boxes (uptime: 26 days): > > > > -1597015721 total name lookups > > cache hits (101% pos + 0% neg) system 0% per-directory > > deletions 0%, falsehits 0%, toolong 0% > > > > Weird. I'll have to cvsup again and hope this has been fixed :) > > I'm not seeing it on an up-to-date -STABLE. Of course, that doesn't > mean much, because it looks like a counter wraparound. Of course it's a wraparound. I was not able to reproduce this condition on newer -STABLE. It takes some weeks of uptime and heavy use to reach this stage, unless you happen to know how to increment the counter with a test program (I don't know how). Shouldn't such counters be at least 64 bit wide? -Farid. -- Farid Hajji. http://www.farid-hajji.net/address.html