Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Jul 1995 09:33:27 -0600 (MDT)
From:      Brad Midgley <junkmail@pht.com>
To:        Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk>
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: 2.0.5-950622-SNAP on a big machine 
Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.3.91.950728084259.6570A-100000@exodus.pht.com>
In-Reply-To: <1178.806947442@palmer.demon.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi everybody

How's that latest snap?  I missed it by 2 days :)

> >machine: pci p60 w/96mb ram, 5 4gig drives (quantum, seagate) and 2 2gig
> >drives (all scsi), buslogic scsi, 3com ethernet. kernel configs:  users=128,
> >options "NMBCLUSTERS=2048", disabled a lot of things, including
> >bounce-buffers, ide, cdrom, iso9660. 

>Which buslogic card?

bt0: Bt946C/ 0-PCI/EISA/VLB(32bit) bus
bt0: reading board settings, busmastering, int=10
bt0: version 4.23, sync, parity, 32 mbxs, 32 ccbs

> >messages about bt0: buffer full (the system was still pingable, great). 

> This isn't my area, but my machine at `work' has a Buslogic 946 in it,
> and it has never seen this error, despite being hammered pretty hard
> sometimes.

and the 950422 snap I was using never had problems like this.  It would go
into "bt0: trying to reset" or somesuch tailspin on occasion if any of
the external scsi drives were physically moved (yikes).

how is 2940w support these days? :)

we do have quite a zoo connected to the scsi chain, probably worth 
mentioning:

(bt0:0:0): "SEAGATE ST31230N 0170" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd0(bt0:0:0): Direct-Access 1010MB (2069860 512 byte sectors)
(bt0:1:0): "SEAGATE ST15150N 0017" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd1(bt0:1:0): Direct-Access 4095MB (8388315 512 byte sectors)
(bt0:2:0): "SEAGATE ST15150N 0017" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd2(bt0:2:0): Direct-Access 4095MB (8388315 512 byte sectors)
(bt0:3:0): "SEAGATE ST15150N 0013" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd3(bt0:3:0): Direct-Access 4095MB (8388315 512 byte sectors)
(bt0:4:0): "QUANTUM XP34301 102C" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd4(bt0:4:0): Direct-Access 4106MB (8410200 512 byte sectors)
(bt0:5:0): "QUANTUM XP34301 102C" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd5(bt0:5:0): Direct-Access 4106MB (8410200 512 byte sectors)
(bt0:6:0): "SEAGATE ST32550N 0012" type 0 fixed SCSI 2
sd6(bt0:6:0): Direct-Access 2047MB (4194058 512 byte sectors)

> Huh? You mean the mount fails, or subsequent accesses fail? I would be
> surprised if you got a stale nfs handle warning/error on mount...

I should have reread my original post better.  The mount (mount
linuxbox:/blah /mnt) works fine, but then accessing the mount point (/mnt)
produces the stale error.  On another box running the fancy fancy caldera
linux system the mount works and then doesn't give the stale error, it
just claims "permission denied" 

> > the machine had an smc card which wasn't recognized by the new system.
> >to be more accurate, I prepped the boot drive on a machine with a 3com 
> >and then changed /etc/sysconfig's 
> 
> What sort of SMC card?

bnc and 10base-t combo (using the 10baset port).  the irq it detected was 
right in any case.

To reiterate: the system was installed on a scsi drive on a puny machine 
to the side (which had a 3com) and then moved over.  If the 
network_interfaces wasn't the only thing to change, that could be the 
problem.

Jul 26 17:12:08 gandalf /kernel: ed0 at 0x280-0x29f irq 5 maddr 0xd8000
msize 8192 on isa
Jul 26 17:12:08 gandalf /kernel:  ed0: address 00:00:c0:3f:66:96, type
SMC8416C/SMC8416BT (16 bit)

> > network_interfaces="ep0 lo0"
> >   to
> > network_interfaces="ed0 lo0"
> 
> That will just affect what the system tries to ifconfig up once it has
> booted, not what devices the kernel will look for on boot. If the
> kernel hasn't found the card, this change will just produce an error.

yes, I did reboot and the kernel saw the card, ifconfiged it, etc., but 
net traffic just wouldn't go through it.  unplugging the smc from the net 
even produced a:

Jul 26 16:23:38 gandalf /kernel: ed0: device timeout

in the log.

thanks for everyone's help.  btw, samba under freebsd is very cool.  If
only we'd had this long ago enough we wouldn't need an evil netware
server. now if only we had netatalk under freebsd :)

-Brad




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.950728084259.6570A-100000>