Stability?

From: Evan Dower (evantd_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/03/04

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: Stability?" 
    To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:31:58 -0700

    % 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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: Stability?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Stability?
      ... > With a recent cvsup I ... Kernel preemption is disabled, expect reduced performance. ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: Catching NForce2 lockup with NMI watchdog - found?
      ... We're all trying to get acpi, apic, lapic, io-apic working ... when turned on in cmos/bios and kernel. ... The three things that each alone have achieved stability ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • merged in bk5 Re: Catching NForce2 lockup with NMI watchdog - found?
      ... plus promise and sis fixes so I don't need to pay ... > when turned on in cmos/bios and kernel. ... > The three things that each alone have achieved stability ... > kernel local apic issue and acpi and apic go together, ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering
      ... > builds due to the lack of stability for 2.6. ... it (and to all the kernel hackers, ... Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Wanna give me a hand debunking this?
      ... stability but not userland stability. ... clear to me that the lack of ABI stability is something Les really ... cares about nor understands why its difficult for Fedora to provide. ... The CentOS and RHEL kernel, OTOH, has security patches backported but the ABI ...
      (Fedora)