Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:18:40 -0500 From: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> To: avg@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/187594: [zfs] [patch] ZFS ARC behavior problem and fix Message-ID: <5329A740.4060304@denninger.net> In-Reply-To: <53288024.2060005@denninger.net> References: <201403181520.s2IFK1M3069036@freefall.freebsd.org> <53288024.2060005@denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 3/18/2014 12:19 PM, Karl Denninger wrote: > > On 3/18/2014 10:20 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> The following reply was made to PR kern/187594; it has been noted by >> GNATS. >> >> From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> >> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, karl@fs.denninger.net >> Cc: >> Subject: Re: kern/187594: [zfs] [patch] ZFS ARC behavior problem and fix >> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:15:05 +0200 >> >> Karl Denninger <karl@fs.denninger.net> wrote: >> > ZFS can be convinced to engage in pathological behavior due to a bad >> > low-memory test in arc.c >> > >> > The offending file is at >> > /usr/src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c; it >> allegedly >> > checks for 25% free memory, and if it is less asks for the cache >> to shrink. >> > >> > (snippet from arc.c around line 2494 of arc.c in 10-STABLE; path >> > /usr/src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs) >> > >> > #else /* !sun */ >> > if (kmem_used() > (kmem_size() * 3) / 4) >> > return (1); >> > #endif /* sun */ >> > >> > Unfortunately these two functions do not return what the authors >> thought >> > they did. It's clear what they're trying to do from the >> Solaris-specific >> > code up above this test. >> No, these functions do return what the authors think they do. >> The check is for KVA usage (kernel virtual address space), not for >> physical memory. > I understand, but that's nonsensical in the context of the Solaris > code. "lotsfree" is *not* a declaration of free kvm space, it's a > declaration of when the system has "lots" of free *physical* memory. > > Further it makes no sense at all to allow the ARC cache to force > things into virtual (e.g. swap-space backed) memory. But that's the > behavior that has been observed, and it fits with the code as > originally written. > >> > The result is that the cache only shrinks when >> vm_paging_needed() tests >> > true, but by that time the system is in serious memory trouble >> and by >> No, it is not. >> The description and numbers here are a little bit outdated but they >> should give >> an idea of how paging works in general: >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/AvgPageoutAlgorithm >> > triggering only there it actually drives the system further >> into paging, >> How does ARC eviction drives the system further into paging? > 1. System gets low on physical memory but the ARC cache is looking at > available kvm (of which there is plenty.) The ARC cache continues to > expand. > > 2. vm_paging_needed() returns true and the system begins to page off > to the swap. At the same time the ARC cache is pared down because > arc_reclaim_needed has returned "1". > > 3. As the ARC cache shrinks and paging occurs vm_paging_needed() > returns false. Paging out ceases but inactive pages remain on the > swap. They are not recalled until and unless they are scheduled to > execute. Arc_reclaim_needed again returns "0". > > 4. The hold-down timer expires in the ARC cache code > ("arc_grow_retry", declared as 60 seconds) and the ARC cache begins to > expand again. > > Go back to #2 until the system's performance starts to deteriorate > badly enough due to the paging that you notice it, which occurs when > something that is actually consuming CPU time has to be called in from > swap. > > This is consistent with what I and others have observed on both 9.2 > and 10.0; the ARC will expand until it hits the maximum configured > even at the expense of forcing pages onto the swap. In this specific > machine's case left to defaults it will grab nearly all physical > memory (over 20GB of 24) and wire it down. > > Limiting arc_max to 16GB sorta fixes it. I say "sorta" because it > turns out that 16GB is still too much for the workload; it prevents > the pathological behavior where system "stalls" happen but only in the > extreme. It turns out with the patch in my ARC cache stabilizes at > about 13.5GB during the busiest part of the day, growing to about 16 > off-hours. > > One of the problems with just limiting it in /boot/loader.conf is that > you have to guess and the system doesn't reasonably adapt to changing > memory loads. The code is clearly intended to do that but it doesn't > end up working that way in practice. >> > because the pager will not recall pages from the swap until >> they are next >> > executed. This leads the ARC to try to fill in all the available >> RAM even >> > though pages have been pushed off onto swap. Not good. >> Unused physical memory is a waste. It is true that ARC tries to >> use as much of >> memory as it is allowed. The same applies to the page cache >> (Active, Inactive). >> Memory management is a dynamic system and there are a few competing >> agents. > That's true. However, what the stock code does is force working set > out of memory and into the swap. The ideal situation is one in which > there is no free memory because cache has sized itself to consume > everything *not* necessary for the working set of the processes that > are running. Unfortunately we cannot determine this presciently > because a new process may come along and we do not necessarily know > for how long a process that is blocked on an event will remain blocked > (e.g. something waiting on network I/O, etc.) > > However, it is my contention that you do not want to evict a process > that is scheduled to run (or is going to be) in favor of disk cache > because you're defeating yourself by doing so. The point of the disk > cache is to avoid going to the physical disk for I/O, but if you page > something you have ditched a physical I/O for data in favor of having > to go to physical disk *twice* -- first to write the paged-out data to > swap, and then to retrieve it when it is to be executed. This also > appears to be consistent with what is present for Solaris machines. > > From the Sun code: > > #ifdef sun > /* > * take 'desfree' extra pages, so we reclaim sooner, rather > than later > */ > extra = desfree; > > /* > * check that we're out of range of the pageout scanner. It > starts to > * schedule paging if freemem is less than lotsfree and needfree. > * lotsfree is the high-water mark for pageout, and needfree > is the > * number of needed free pages. We add extra pages here to > make sure > * the scanner doesn't start up while we're freeing memory. > */ > if (freemem < lotsfree + needfree + extra) > return (1); > > /* > * check to make sure that swapfs has enough space so that anon > * reservations can still succeed. anon_resvmem() checks that the > * availrmem is greater than swapfs_minfree, and the number of > reserved > * swap pages. We also add a bit of extra here just to prevent > * circumstances from getting really dire. > */ > if (availrmem < swapfs_minfree + swapfs_reserve + extra) > return (1); > > "freemem" is not virtual memory, it's actual memory. "Lotsfree" is > the point where the system considers free RAM to be "ample"; > "needfree" is the "desperation" point and "extra" is the margin > (presumably for image activation.) > > The base code on FreeBSD doesn't look at physical memory at all; it > looks at kvm space instead. > >> It is hard to correctly tune that system using a large hummer such >> as your >> patch. I believe that with your patch ARC will get shrunk to its >> minimum size >> in due time. Active + Inactive will grow to use the memory that >> you are denying >> to ARC driving Free below a threshold, which will reduce ARC. >> Repeated enough >> times this will drive ARC to its minimum. > I disagree both in design theory and based on the empirical evidence > of actual operation. > > First, I don't (ever) want to give memory to the ARC cache that > otherwise would go to "active", because any time I do that I'm going > to force two page events, which is double the amount of I/O I would > take on a cache *miss*, and even with the ARC at minimum I get a > reasonable hit percentage. If I therefore prefer ARC over "active" > pages I am going to take *at least* a 200% penalty on physical I/O and > if I get an 80% hit ratio with the ARC at a minimum the penalty is > closer to 800%! > > For inactive pages it's a bit more complicated as those may not be > reactivated. However, I am trusting FreeBSD's VM subsystem to demote > those that are unlikely to be reactivated to the cache bucket and then > to "free", where they are able to be re-used. This is consistent with > what I actually see on a running system -- the "inact" bucket is > typically fairly large (often on a busy machine close to that of > "active") but pages demoted to "cache" don't stay there long - they > either get re-promoted back up or they are freed and go on the free list. > > The only time I see "inact" get out of control is when there's a > kernel memory leak somewhere (such as what I ran into the other day > with the in-kernel NAT subsystem on 10-STABLE.) But that's a bug and > if it happens you're going to get bit anyway. > > For example right now on one of my very busy systems with 24GB of > installed RAM and many terabytes of storage across three ZFS pools I'm > seeing 17GB wired of which 13.5 is ARC cache. That's the adaptive > figure it currently is running at, with a maximum of 22.3 and a > minimum of 2.79 (8:1 ratio.) The remainder is wired down for other > reasons (there's a fairly large Postgres server running on that box, > among other things, and it has a big shared buffer declaration -- > that's most of the difference.) Cache hit efficiency is currently 97.8%. > > Active is 2.26G right now, and inactive is 2.09G. Both are stable. > Overnight inactive will drop to about 1.1GB while active will not > change all that much since most of it postgres and the middleware that > talks to it along with apache, which leaves most of its processes > present even when they go idle. Peak load times are about right now > (mid-day), and again when the system is running backups nightly. > > Cache is 7448, in other words, insignificant. Free memory is 2.6G. > > The tunable is set to 10%, which is almost exactly what free memory > is. I find that when the system gets under 1G free transient image > activation can drive it into paging and performance starts to suffer > for my particular workload. > >> Also, there are a few technical problems with the patch: >> - you don't need to use sysctl interface in kernel, the values you >> need are >> available directly, just take a look at e.g. implementation of >> vm_paging_needed() > That's easily fixed. I will look at it. >> - similarly, querying vfs.zfs.arc_freepage_percent_target value via >> kernel_sysctlbyname is just bogus; you can use percent_target directly > I did not know if during setup of the OID the value was copied (and > thus you had to reference it later on) or the entry simply took the > pointer and stashed that. Easily corrected. >> - you don't need to sum various page counters to get a total count, >> there is >> v_page_count > Fair enough as well. >> Lastly, can you try to test reverting your patch and instead setting >> vm.lowmem_period=0 ? > Yes. By default it's 10; I have not tampered with that default. > > Let me do a bit of work and I'll post back with a revised patch. > Perhaps a tunable for percentage free + a free reserve that is a > "floor"? The problem with that is where to put the defaults. One > option would be to grab total size at init time and compute something > similar to what "lotsfree" is for Solaris, allowing that to be tuned > with the percentage if desired. I selected 25% because that's what > the original test was expressing and it should be reasonable for > modest RAM configurations. It's clearly too high for moderately large > (or huge) memory machines unless they have a lot of RAM -hungry > processes running on them. > > The percentage test, however, is an easy knob to twist that is > unlikely to severely harm you if you dial it too far in either > direction; anyone setting it to zero obviously knows what they're > getting into, and if you crank it too high all you end up doing is > limiting the ARC to the minimum value. > Responsive to the criticisms and in an attempt to better-track what the VM system does, I offer this update to the patch. The following changes have been made: 1. There are now two tunables: vfs.zfs.arc_freepages -- the number of free pages below which we declare low memory and ask for ARC paring. vfs.zfs.arc_freepage_percent -- the additional free RAM to reserve in percent of total, if any (added to freepages) 2. vfs.zfs.arc_freepages, if zero (as is the default at boot), defaults to "vm.stats.vm.v_free_target" less 20%. This allows the system to get into the page-stealing paradigm before the ARC cache is invaded. While I do not run into a situation of unbridled inact page growth here the criticism that the original patch could allow this appears to be well-founded. Setting the low memory alert here should prevent this, as the system will now allow the ARC to grow to the point that page-stealing takes place. 3. The previous option to reserve either a hard amount of RAM or a percentage of RAM remains. 4. The defaults should auto-tune for any particular RAM configuration to reasonable values that prevent stalls, yet if you have circumstances that argue for reserving more memory you may do so. Updated patch follows: *** arc.c.original Thu Mar 13 09:18:48 2014 --- arc.c Wed Mar 19 07:44:01 2014 *************** *** 18,23 **** --- 18,99 ---- * * CDDL HEADER END */ + + /* Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net), 3/18/2014, FreeBSD-specific + * + * If "NEWRECLAIM" is defined, change the "low memory" warning that causes + * the ARC cache to be pared down. The reason for the change is that the + * apparent attempted algorithm is to start evicting ARC cache when free + * pages fall below 25% of installed RAM. This maps reasonably well to how + * Solaris is documented to behave; when "lotsfree" is invaded ZFS is told + * to pare down. + * + * The problem is that on FreeBSD machines the system doesn't appear to be + * getting what the authors of the original code thought they were looking at + * with its test -- or at least not what Solaris did -- and as a result that + * test never triggers. That leaves the only reclaim trigger as the "paging + * needed" status flag, and by the time * that trips the system is already + * in low-memory trouble. This can lead to severe pathological behavior + * under the following scenario: + * - The system starts to page and ARC is evicted. + * - The system stops paging as ARC's eviction drops wired RAM a bit. + * - ARC starts increasing its allocation again, and wired memory grows. + * - A new image is activated, and the system once again attempts to page. + * - ARC starts to be evicted again. + * - Back to #2 + * + * Note that ZFS's ARC default (unless you override it in /boot/loader.conf) + * is to allow the ARC cache to grab nearly all of free RAM, provided nobody + * else needs it. That would be ok if we evicted cache when required. + * + * Unfortunately the system can get into a state where it never + * manages to page anything of materiality back in, as if there is active + * I/O the ARC will start grabbing space once again as soon as the memory + * contention state drops. For this reason the "paging is occurring" flag + * should be the **last resort** condition for ARC eviction; you want to + * (as Solaris does) start when there is material free RAM left BUT the + * vm system thinks it needs to be active to steal pages back in the attempt + * to never get into the condition where you're potentially paging off + * executables in favor of leaving disk cache allocated. + * + * To fix this we change how we look at low memory, declaring two new + * runtime tunables. + * + * The new sysctls are: + * vfs.zfs.arc_freepages (free pages required to call RAM "sufficient") + * vfs.zfs.arc_freepage_percent (additional reservation percentage, default 0) + * + * vfs.zfs.arc_freepages is initialized from vm.stats.vm.v_free_target, + * less 20% if we find that it is zero. Note that vm.stats.vm.v_free_target + * is not initialized at boot -- the system has to be running first, so we + * cannot initialize this in arc_init. So we check during runtime; this + * also allows the user to return to defaults by setting it to zero. + * + * This should insure that we allow the VM system to steal pages first, + * but pare the cache before we suspend processes attempting to get more + * memory, thereby avoiding "stalls." You can set this higher if you wish, + * or force a specific percentage reservation as well, but doing so may + * cause the cache to pare back while the VM system remains willing to + * allow "inactive" pages to accumulate. The challenge is that image + * activation can force things into the page space on a repeated basis + * if you allow this level to be too small (the above pathological + * behavior); the defaults should avoid that behavior but the sysctls + * are exposed should your workload require adjustment. + * + * If we're using this check for low memory we are replacing the previous + * ones, including the oddball "random" reclaim that appears to fire far + * more often than it should. We still trigger if the system pages. + * + * If you turn on NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG then the kernel will print on the console + * status messages when the reclaim status trips on and off, along with the + * page count aggregate that triggered it (and the free space) for each + * event. + */ + + #define NEWRECLAIM + #undef NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG + + /* * Copyright (c) 2005, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. * Copyright (c) 2013 by Delphix. All rights reserved. *************** *** 139,144 **** --- 215,226 ---- #include <vm/vm_pageout.h> + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM + #ifdef __FreeBSD__ + #include <sys/sysctl.h> + #endif + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM */ + #ifdef illumos #ifndef _KERNEL /* set with ZFS_DEBUG=watch, to enable watchpoints on frozen buffers */ *************** *** 203,218 **** --- 285,320 ---- int zfs_arc_shrink_shift = 0; int zfs_arc_p_min_shift = 0; int zfs_disable_dup_eviction = 0; + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM + #ifdef __FreeBSD__ + static int freepages = 0; /* This much memory is considered critical */ + static int percent_target = 0; /* Additionally reserve "X" percent free RAM */ + #endif /* __FreeBSD__ */ + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM */ TUNABLE_QUAD("vfs.zfs.arc_max", &zfs_arc_max); TUNABLE_QUAD("vfs.zfs.arc_min", &zfs_arc_min); TUNABLE_QUAD("vfs.zfs.arc_meta_limit", &zfs_arc_meta_limit); + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM + #ifdef __FreeBSD__ + TUNABLE_INT("vfs.zfs.arc_freepages", &freepages); + TUNABLE_INT("vfs.zfs.arc_freepage_percent", &percent_target); + #endif /* __FreeBSD__ */ + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM */ + SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_zfs); SYSCTL_UQUAD(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, arc_max, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, &zfs_arc_max, 0, "Maximum ARC size"); SYSCTL_UQUAD(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, arc_min, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, &zfs_arc_min, 0, "Minimum ARC size"); + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM + #ifdef __FreeBSD__ + SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, arc_freepages, CTLFLAG_RWTUN, &freepages, 0, "ARC Free RAM Pages Required"); + SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, arc_freepage_percent, CTLFLAG_RWTUN, &percent_target, 0, "ARC Free RAM Target percentage"); + #endif /* __FreeBSD__ */ + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM */ + /* * Note that buffers can be in one of 6 states: * ARC_anon - anonymous (discussed below) *************** *** 2438,2443 **** --- 2540,2557 ---- { #ifdef _KERNEL + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM + #ifdef __FreeBSD__ + u_int vmfree = 0; + u_int vmtotal = 0; + size_t vmsize; + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG + static int xval = -1; + static int oldpercent = 0; + static int oldfreepages = 0; + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG */ + #endif /* __FreeBSD__ */ + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM */ if (needfree) return (1); *************** *** 2476,2481 **** --- 2590,2596 ---- return (1); #if defined(__i386) + /* * If we're on an i386 platform, it's possible that we'll exhaust the * kernel heap space before we ever run out of available physical *************** *** 2492,2502 **** return (1); #endif #else /* !sun */ if (kmem_used() > (kmem_size() * 3) / 4) return (1); #endif /* sun */ - #else if (spa_get_random(100) == 0) return (1); #endif --- 2607,2680 ---- return (1); #endif #else /* !sun */ + + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM + #ifdef __FreeBSD__ + /* + * Implement the new tunable free RAM algorithm. We check the free pages + * against the minimum specified target and the percentage that should be + * free. If we're low we ask for ARC cache shrinkage. If this is defined + * on a FreeBSD system the older checks are not performed. + * + * Check first to see if we need to init freepages, then test. + */ + if (!freepages) { /* If zero then (re)init */ + vmsize = sizeof(vmtotal); + kernel_sysctlbyname(curthread, "vm.stats.vm.v_free_target", &vmtotal, &vmsize, NULL, 0, NULL, 0); + freepages = vmtotal - (vmtotal / 5); + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG + printf("ZFS ARC: Default vfs.zfs.arc_freepages to [%u] [%u less 20%%]\n", freepages, vmtotal); + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG */ + } + + vmsize = sizeof(vmtotal); + kernel_sysctlbyname(curthread, "vm.stats.vm.v_page_count", &vmtotal, &vmsize, NULL, 0, NULL, 0); + vmsize = sizeof(vmfree); + kernel_sysctlbyname(curthread, "vm.stats.vm.v_free_count", &vmfree, &vmsize, NULL, 0, NULL, 0); + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG + if (percent_target != oldpercent) { + printf("ZFS ARC: Reservation percent change to [%d], [%d] pages, [%d] free\n", percent_target, vmtotal, vmfree); + oldpercent = percent_target; + } + if (freepages != oldfreepages) { + printf("ZFS ARC: Low RAM page change to [%d], [%d] pages, [%d] free\n", freepages, vmtotal, vmfree); + oldfreepages = freepages; + } + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG */ + if (!vmtotal) { + vmtotal = 1; /* Protect against divide by zero */ + /* (should be impossible, but...) */ + } + /* + * Now figure out how much free RAM we require to call the ARC cache status + * "ok". Add the percentage specified of the total to the base requirement. + */ + + if (vmfree < freepages + ((vmtotal / 100) * percent_target)) { + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG + if (xval != 1) { + printf("ZFS ARC: RECLAIM total %u, free %u, free pct (%u), reserved (%u), target pct (%u)\n", vmtotal, vmfree, ((vmfree * 100) / vmtotal), freepages, percent_target); + xval = 1; + } + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG */ + return(1); + } else { + #ifdef NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG + if (xval != 0) { + printf("ZFS ARC: NORMAL total %u, free %u, free pct (%u), reserved (%u), target pct (%u)\n", vmtotal, vmfree, ((vmfree * 100) / vmtotal), freepages, percent_target); + xval = 0; + } + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM_DEBUG */ + return(0); + } + + #endif /* __FreeBSD__ */ + #endif /* NEWRECLAIM */ + if (kmem_used() > (kmem_size() * 3) / 4) return (1); #endif /* sun */ if (spa_get_random(100) == 0) return (1); #endif -- -- Karl karl@denninger.net [-- Attachment #2 --] 0 *H 01 0 + 0 *H O0K030 *H 01 0 UUS10UFlorida10U Niceville10U Cuda Systems LLC1 0UCuda Systems LLC CA1/0- *H customer-service@cudasystems.net0 130824190344Z 180823190344Z0[1 0 UUS10UFlorida10UKarl Denninger1!0 *H karl@denninger.net0"0 *H 0 bi՞] MNԿawx?`)'ҴcWgR@BlWh+ u}ApdCF JVй~FOL }EW^bچYp3K& ׂ(R lxڝ.xz?6 &nsJ +1v9 v/( kqĪp[vjcK%fϻe?iq]z lyzFO'ppdX//Lw(3 JI A*S#՟H[f|CGqJKoo y.oEuOw$ /섀$삻J9b|A P~8]D1YI<"""Y^T2iQ2 b yH)] Ƶ0y$ _N 6XqMC 9 XgώjGTP"#nˋ"Bk1 00 U 0 0 `HB0 U 0, `HB OpenSSL Generated Certificate0 U |8 ˴d[20 U #0]Af4 U3x&^"408 `HB+)https://cudasystems.net:11443/revoked.crl0 *H gBwH] j\x`( &gW32"Uf^. ^Iϱ k!DQA g{(w /)\N'[ oRW @C HO>)XrTNɘ!u`xt5(=f\-l3<@C6mnhv##1ŃbH͍_Nq aʷ?rk$^9TIa!kh,D -ct1 0001 0 UUS10UFlorida10U Niceville10U Cuda Systems LLC1 0UCuda Systems LLC CA1/0- *H customer-service@cudasystems.net0 + ;0 *H 1 *H 0 *H 1 140319141840Z0# *H 1 JZp GF0l *H 1_0]0 `He*0 `He0 *H 0*H 0 *H @0+0 *H (0 +71001 0 UUS10UFlorida10U Niceville10U Cuda Systems LLC1 0UCuda Systems LLC CA1/0- *H customer-service@cudasystems.net0 *H 101 0 UUS10UFlorida10U Niceville10U Cuda Systems LLC1 0UCuda Systems LLC CA1/0- *H customer-service@cudasystems.net0 *H `_C% h} bRFFpLÔ=a'N%h| fJ<D%'plݖ 6~ٕWU* XX~wȂ eGVaޠJYۻQÞ[~rק'_ e̳ f\R;ʷ.+XdyH".vm()avY(T &ܰG87# ^ RrxvN6kԯ4oQ=O^k.gגmq[XC{X1 W07XO/11f"f,y{;پ< lk@>d*Dqg4ϴI(HF CΧ(ɶQl{<>J% yPg<+7=JwCe!CFWإr?ܓCa<l#Q+Luf< q? QoW!W8E#שK#Zn9(DT^:*¦u#)fO
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5329A740.4060304>