From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 12 23:36:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 7B05C16A420 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:36:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atanas@asd.aplus.net) Received: from pro20.abac.com (pro20.abac.com [66.226.64.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AE043D81 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:35:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atanas@asd.aplus.net) Received: from [216.55.129.41] (asd0.aplus.net [216.55.129.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro20.abac.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBCNZt4S002174; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:35:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from atanas@asd.aplus.net) Message-ID: <439E0B23.3060304@asd.aplus.net> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:43:31 -0800 From: Atanas User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051026) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Klop , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <439DE88B.1090407@asd.aplus.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.47 (SPF_SOFTFAIL) Cc: Subject: Re: 6.0 random freezes 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: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:36:06 -0000 Ronald Klop said the following on 12/12/05 13:27: > > What happens if you set one of these sysctl values to 0? (This disables > SMP changes from 5.4 to 6.0.) > debug.mpsafevfs: 1 > debug.mpsafenet: 1 > debug.mpsafevm: 1 > Thanks for the suggestion! I just did so and rebooted both machines, so we'll see. I remember unseting debug.mpsafenet before 5.4 due to some ipfw limitations, but didn't know about the other two. > And is there a possibility (performance-wise) to build a kernel with > WITNESS and/or INVARIANTS options compiled in. This will give more info > about possible locking problems. Your system will run slower. And > because of this the problem may not occur anymore, but it is worth the > try. > Both machines are not much loaded, so I could afford slowing them down a bit for a while (I hope it won't be several times slower). I will do that at some point later if the problem still persists. I hope I won't be forced to downgrade to 5.4, though I'm already working on that (just in case). Regards, Atanas