Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has
uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox.
This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts.
Was prgbox omitted for any particular reason?
I realize that change is inevitable.
Is
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:28 AM, David Boyd wrote:
> Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has
> uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox.
>
> This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts.
>
> Was prgbox omitted for any
On 02/09/11 10:15, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:28 AM, David Boyd wrote:
Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has
uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox.
This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scr
Has anyone noodled through the details of pxeboot and pc-sysinstall for
automated installs?
I have working configurations for pxeboot and sysinstall for 8.1-RELEASE and
prior.
What are the gotchas for 9.0-CURRENT?
I have lots of testing time available.
Thanks.
_
Included in the attached patch is the refactor using fts(3) and with the -L
and -H options. I'm still looking for feedback and suggestions on how to
improve the patch. I'll also port these changes over to my getfacl patch.
If anyone's interested in following up-to-date development of the patch, th
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:28:53AM -0500, David Boyd wrote:
> Having some time to test 9.0-CURRENT with the new dialog command has
> uncovered only one major omission (for us): prgbox/dialog_prgbox.
>
> This is used in most (if not all) of our installation/management scripts.
>
> Was prgbox omitt
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:13 PM, David Boyd wrote:
> Has anyone noodled through the details of pxeboot and pc-sysinstall for
> automated installs?
>
> I have working configurations for pxeboot and sysinstall for 8.1-RELEASE and
> prior.
>
> What are the gotchas for 9.0-CURRENT?
>
> I have lots of
I have been using iperf in server mode to do some performance analysis.
I was trying to increase the Receive TCP Window Size via
sysctl net.inet.tcp.recvspace=
I noticed that I could increase it atmost to 128Kbytes (131072). Any value
above 128k, results in a failure to get the requested window
You may have to tune few more - kern.ipc.maxsockbuf, kern.ipc.nmbclusters.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~jeffay/dirt/FAQ/sobuf.html
http://people.freebsd.org/~adrian/sysctl.descriptions
Regards,
Gireesh
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-curr...@fr
