Re: Strange Lag with 3.2

[John Eisenschmidt <jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org>]

Marco emailed me privately and suggested the following, my comments on
how it went inline...

----- Forwarded message from Marco Peereboom <slash_(_at_)_peereboom_(_dot_)_us> -----

> Reply-To: <slash_(_at_)_peereboom_(_dot_)_us>
> From: "Marco Peereboom" <slash_(_at_)_peereboom_(_dot_)_us>
> To: "'John Eisenschmidt'" <jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org>
> Subject: RE: Strange Lag with 3.2
> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:39:39 -0600
>
> Try GENERIC with only the RAID driver. Don't use the NMBCLUSTERS,
> APERTURE and the BUFCACHEPERCENT options.
>
> Aperture should be enabled in /etc/sysctl.conf line:
> machdep.allowaperture=2         # See xf86(4)
>
> Try that and see what that does.

Made the changes, built a new kernel, rebooted with the Intel fxp nic
inside, same slowness within 5 minutes.

> Then try to add your other options. Although I don't really see why you
> need them.

As I mentioned to Marco in a separate email, the bufcachepct and
nmbclusters are to alleviate lag when playing mp3s over samba. Same
problem with or without.

> Good luck,
> /marco

Thanks to Marco and everyone who's responded so far, but still no
luck.

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Eisenschmidt [mailto:jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org]
> > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 13:28
> > To: Marco Peereboom
> > Subject: Re: Strange Lag with 3.2
> >
> >
> > Rumor has it that Marco Peereboom (slash_(_at_)_peereboom_(_dot_)_us) said:
> > > Shit, I did not even see that.
> > >
> > > Try GENERIC before you get flamed to death (maybe even
> > deserved)! The
> > > developers have no mercy with people complaining while
> > using homemade
> > > kernels.
> >
> > I would if I could -- RAIDFrame root mirror:
> >
> > jweisen_(_at_)_kaitain$ diff GENERIC kaitain
> > 21c21
> > < option                APERTURE        # in-kernel aperture
> > driver for XFree86
> > ---
> > > #option               APERTURE        # in-kernel aperture
> > driver for XFree86
> > 26c26
> > < #option               DUMMY_NOPS      # speed hack; recommended
> > ---
> > > option                DUMMY_NOPS      # speed hack; recommended
> > 35a36,39
> > > option                RAID_AUTOCONFIG
> > > option                NMBCLUSTERS=8192
> > > option                BUFCACHEPERCENT=30
> > >
> > 503c507
> > < #pseudo-device        raid            4       # RAIDframe
> > disk driver
> > ---
> > > pseudo-device raid            4       # RAIDframe disk driver
> >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org [mailto:owner-misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Peter Verhagen
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:40
> > > > To: jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org
> > > > Cc: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
> > > > Subject: Re: Strange Lag with 3.2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible for you switch back to the generic kernel and
> > > > test pf again?
> > > >
> > > > Did you try a different PCI slot for the problematic NIC? For
> > > > example, some mainboards with IDE RAID controllers tie
> > into the same
> > > > IRQ as one of PCI slots. As an example, my KR7A-RAID manual
> > > > states:
> > > >
> > > > =-=-=-=-=-
> > > > PCI Slot 5 shares IRQ signals with the HPT 372 controller
> > > > (supports Ultra DMA133)....
> > > > =-=-=-=-=-
> > > >
> > > > I've found that, even with the ATARAID disabled in the BIOS,
> > > > any PCI cards in such a slot are flakey at best.
> > > >
> > > > Kind reguards,
> > > > Peter Verhagen
> > > >
> > > > > As far as I can tell, yes. With the exception of the 2 new 120GB
> > > > > drives (which I've had running for three weeks) all the
> > > > hardware had
> > > > > been in service at least a year without any problems. I really
> > > > > hope
> > > > > it's something I screwed up, and I really thought it was an
> > > > interrupt
> > > > > problem, but since I eliminated that this is the only thing
> > > > I've come
> > > > > up with, and I'm baffled. I don't know if it is the
> > interraction
> > > > > between raidframe and pf, but I can recreate the behavior after
> > > > > disabling pf. The only combination I've come up with
> > that doesn't
> > > > > cause this problem is no Intel NIC on the inside.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > John W. Eisenschmidt (jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org)
> > > > >   http://www.eisenschmidt.org/jweisen/pgp.html
> > > > >
> > > > > "If God were cheese, would we still worship on Sundays?"
> >
> > --
> > John W. Eisenschmidt (jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org)
> >   http://www.eisenschmidt.org/jweisen/pgp.html
> >
> > "The Religious Right is neither."
> >
> >
>

----- End forwarded message -----

--
John W. Eisenschmidt (jweisen_(_at_)_eisenschmidt_(_dot_)_org)
  http://www.eisenschmidt.org/jweisen/pgp.html

"Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs
 which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can." -Zawinski's Law

[demime 0.98d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]