From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 3 16:31:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF6C16A4CE for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:31:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hotmail.com (bay8-f65.bay8.hotmail.com [64.4.27.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8872D43D5F for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:31:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from evantd@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:31:58 -0700 Received: from 128.95.167.53 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:31:58 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.95.167.53] X-Originating-Email: [evantd@hotmail.com] X-Sender: evantd@hotmail.com From: "Evan Dower" To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:31:58 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2004 16:31:58.0369 (UTC) FILETIME=[6578A110:01C47977] Subject: Stability? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:31:58 -0000 % uptime 9:23AM up 1 day, 15:42, 6 users, load averages: 0,98 1,19 1,25 With a recent cvsup (and all the rebuilding and installing involved) I have noticed what seems to be an improvement in stability. I must have missed any postings about it. Any, recent cvsup means about an hour before this: % uname -a FreeBSD lojak.washington.edu 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #0: Sun Aug 1 16:06:05 PDT 2004 root@lojak.washington.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DEBUG i386 I noticed that my kernel has now started saying (in the dmesg): WARNING: Kernel preemption is disabled, expect reduced performance. Of course, I have WITNESS turned on in my debug kernel so I already expect reduced performance. Is this message suggesting that I put FULL_PREEMPTION in my kernel? I was under the impression that it was only useful for seeing where stuff broke. Is stuff so good now that it will improve performance without significant effect on stability? Or perhaps it is indicating that PREEMPTION is #undef'd? I didn't #undef it so if this is the case it must have been changed upstream. In any case, I am very glad to have a more stable system again. Thanks very much to all who contributed. I'm just curious as to what it was the fixed the instability issues we had been having. Thanks again, -- Evan Dower Undergraduate, Computer Science University of Washington Public key: http://students.washington.edu/evantd/pgp-pub-key.txt Key fingerprint = D321 FA24 4BDA F82D 53A9 5B27 7D15 5A4F 033F 887D _________________________________________________________________ Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide! http://dollar.msn.com