On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, A G F Keahan wrote:
> I have a strange problem with smbfs, where the mounted share times out
> and becomes inaccessible after a period of time. I haven't been able to
> pinpoint the exact moment when it happens, but basically:
This was a bug in the processing of keep
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, current implementation of fetch(1) ignores "301 redirect"
> silently. Is it expected behavior? Should it make warning message
> without -v option? (or following redirection?)
Uh, that's a bug. It's supposed to work. I'll be right on it.
DE
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, current implementation of fetch(1) ignores "301 redirect"
> silently. Is it expected behavior? Should it make warning message
> without -v option? (or following redirection?)
The bug is twofold: first, it doesn't handle relative redirects
p
Just for the record:
i added a printf statement to the beginning of every subroutine in
file /sys/dev/kbd/kbd.c and with this additions the panic disappears
and pcvt runs fine as ever.
Removing the printf's from kbd.c shows the usual described panic.
I'm now completely out of ideas
hell
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:54:47 MST, Eric Anholt wrote:
> What I did do, I went into sys/dev/fb/vga.c and commented out the
> second vga head detection. Works beautifully now, though it would be
> better to actually figure out why it was finding another vga card.
> Still, it's up and running.
I'
On 13-Jul-00 Hellmuth Michaelis wrote:
> I'm now completely out of ideas
Try and pin down which printf really makes a difference ?
I recall a long time ago a bit of code that had calls to a function
that did nothing, the comment was that it prevented an MSC optimiser bug fr
Ok guys it's a _very_ rough HOWTO, but patches (not comments!) would be
appreciated:
How to install FreeBSD via Intel's netboot (PXE)
http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/pxe/
enjoy.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar
On Monday, 10th July 2000, Stefan Esser wrote:
>On 2000-07-09 20:52 +1000, Stephen McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8th July 2000, Stefan Esser wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, there are renegotiations after each overrun ???
>> The code at the point that an underrun is detected is:
>>
>> p
Hello All,
i was working on integration of Ethernet TAP driver and NETGRAPH
and found strange thing. the problem is that NG_ETHER nodes do not
detach correctly when interface is gone. i was taking a very quick
look at it, and, it seems to me that we are missing one reference
to a node. i think it
I updated current around 6pm EDT yesterday (7/12/00) now I'm getting
mfs_badop[vop_getwritemount]
mfs_badop[vop_getwritemount] = 45
every now and again. I've received 10 being up 11 hours.
uname -a says
FreeBSD midgard.dhs.org 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #0: Wed Jul 12 23:59:08 GMT
2000
I turned off the malloc AJ flags, via malloc.conf. It improved 'make
world' by something like 17% == mean_aj/mean_AJ.
Make World Statistics
-current SMP, 2xP133, 96MB RAM, IBM Superstor 9G disk.
Lines is the number of lines of output produced by 'make world'.
Date Lines Make Time Lines/Minut
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Thomas D. Dean" writes:
>I turned off the malloc AJ flags, via malloc.conf. It improved 'make
>world' by something like 17% == mean_aj/mean_AJ.
Make sense, make world is dominated by gcc/cc1 which is doing a
lot of malloc/free operations.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>>Guess it will show up if you measure latencies (or your application is
>>doing lots of RPCs). But as soon as there is a cheap 100baseT switch in
>>the path to the destination, there will be store-and-forward at work ;-)
>
>Does anyone here actually meas
I object to these patches.
the idea is good but these patches are misguided..
Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> i was working on integration of Ethernet TAP driver and NETGRAPH
> and found strange thing. the problem is that NG_ETHER nodes do not
> detach correctly when interf
> I object to these patches.
> the idea is good but these patches are misguided..
ok :) i did not say that is an ultimate solution :) i did
not even say that they are good :) the only idea behind
these patches is to show that there is a _possible_ node
reference problem :) that's it :)
[...]
I just upgraded my current system (source about 4 hours ago) and tried to
snapshot a file system...
(kgdb) core-file /var/crash/vmcore.6
IdlePTD 3649536
initial pcb at 2e3d60
panicstr: ffs_balloc: blk too big
panic messages:
---
---
#0 boot (howto=Cannot access memory at address 0xcced1ad4.
) at
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:08:50 GMT, Charles Anderson wrote:
> I updated current around 6pm EDT yesterday (7/12/00) now I'm getting
> mfs_badop[vop_getwritemount]
> mfs_badop[vop_getwritemount] = 45
I've mailed Kirk about these, but if you read his snapshots commit
message, they're probably harml
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>
> >>Guess it will show up if you measure latencies (or your application is
> >>doing lots of RPCs). But as soon as there is a cheap 100baseT switch in
> >>the path to the destination, there will be store-and-forward at work ;-)
> >
> >Does anyone here
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
: > This is probably a candidate for UPDATING.
:
: That wouldn't hurt. But it actually affects _all_ branches, I
: believe. So in a way, UPDATING doesn't cover enough ground.
Does anybody have any text that is better than the following?
2
> "Warner" == Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Warner> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
Warner> : > This is probably a candidate for UPDATING.
Warner> :
Warner> : That wouldn't hurt. But it actually affects _all_ branches, I
Warner> : believe.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin Hopkins
writes:
: > "Warner" == Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Warner> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra
:writes:
: Warner> : > This is probably a candidate for UPDATING.
: Warner> :
: Warner> : That wouldn't hurt
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
> : > This is probably a candidate for UPDATING.
> :
> : That wouldn't hurt. But it actually affects _all_ branches, I
> : believe. So in a way, UPDATING doesn't cover enough ground.
>
> Does anybody have any text that is better than the fo
Warner> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin
Hopkins writes:
Warner> : > "Warner" == Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Warner> :
Warner> : Warner> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John
Polstra writes:
Warner> : Warner> : > This is probably a candidate for U
> "Mark" == Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
>> : > This is probably a candidate for UPDATING.
>> :
>> : That wouldn't hurt. But it actually affects _all_ branches, I
>> : believe. So in a way, UPDATING doesn
Hello All,
long time back there was a discussion about kerneld for FreeBSD.
some people have found it useless, but some not :)
anyway, alpha version of code can be found at sourceforge.net.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kerneld/
changes:
- minor bug fixes
- kd device improvements (now suppo
> > "Mark" == Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes:
> >> : > This is probably a candidate for UPDATING.
> >> :
> >> : That wouldn't hurt. But it actually affects _all_ branches, I
> >> : believe. So in a way,
Indeed, this was the problem. I, at some time, switched it to -O2.
Thanks for all the suggestions!
Patrick
Dan Papasian wrote:
>
> What optimizations did you use when compiling your kernel?
> (COPTFLAGS)
>
> If it's anything more than -O -pipe, then that may very well
> be your problem.
>
Hmmm.. I have been experiencing a problem when I
installworld with freebsd-5.0. The install breaks with rtld-elf when the
install put the new copy of ld-elf.s0.1 onto my system. Most f my prgrams
signal 11 until I put the old ne back. Is there smething I was supposed t
do befre this??
Cyrille Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> why it's not possible to suspend SCSI drives like the ATA/IDE ones ?
>
> I'm not talking about camcontrol suspend feature. if you have a mounted
> filesystem, and access a file onto that filesystem while the drive is
> suspended in this manner, the s
On Thursday, 13th July 2000, "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>>
>>>Does anyone here actually measure these latencies? I know for a fact
>>>that nothing I've ever done would or could be affected by extra latencies
>>>that are as small as the ones we are disc
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> place. I suspect an interaction between the ATA driver and VIA chipsets,
> because other than the network, that's all that is operating when I see
> the underruns. And my Celeron with a ZX chipset is immune.
I've noticed this on a VIA chipset machine
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hellmuth Michaelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i added a printf statement to the beginning of every subroutine in
> file /sys/dev/kbd/kbd.c and with this additions the panic disappears
> and pcvt runs fine as ever.
>
> Removing the printf's from kbd.c shows th
32 matches
Mail list logo
