David Miller wrote:
>
> Any supported cards in 3.2.x? The HCL pages don't list any:(
man ti(4). My Netgear GA620s work just fine. Many thanks to Bill Paul, as
usual.
This issue was addressed on the -network mailing list LAST week. Apparently
you didn't search the archives very hard. ;^)
-
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 04:25:26PM -0400, John W. DeBoskey wrote:
>The subject says it all... We have some code that scans files
> backwards...
I've asked about it a year ago, see
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=487426+0+archive/1998/freebsd-hackers/19980726.freebsd-hackers
> > 'no buffer space' often comes when the output IFQ is full, which is
> > between 20 and 50 buffers. Are you sure you are seeing more than those
> > mbufs in use ?
>
> It occurs when about 105/128 mbufs (94%) are used.
ok, that's reasonable, with 50 bufs in the output queue and perhaps a
matchi
> What I would really like to do is to increase the number of
> partitions allowed in a disklabel. I really dislike having to
> mess with fdisk.
>
> The system defaults to 8. sys/diskslice.h seems to imply that
> you can compile up a kernel with a higher number.
it looks you
On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 0:11:23 -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Masto wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see the use for it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> The thing is SO obviously flawed, that I wonder how many marketoid
>> drones it took to make sensible people think it is a
On Tuesday, 24 August 1999 at 22:28:10 -0700, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> In article <19990825113518.d83273.kithrup.freebsd.cvs-...@freebie.lemis.com>
> you write:
>> Correct. I lock a stripe at a time.
>
> What people need to realize is that Greg is doing this locking in user mode.
>
> As such, he
Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
> > > superuser. It could be restricted to specific users (say file owner +
> > > root)...
> >
> > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the p
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> Christopher Masto wrote:
> >
> > I don't see the use for it.
>
> :-)
>
> The thing is SO obviously flawed, that I wonder how many marketoid
> drones it took to make sensible people think it is actually useful.
> :-)
And how many programmers with nearly (or more tha
Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
>
> The fact that Greg thinks it's necessary and desirable (and he has
> considerably more OS experience than a lot of the people who have decided it's
> a stupid idea) should alone say a lot for the idea.
I was waiting for someone else to bring up that point, because I migh
David Miller wrote:
>
> Any supported cards in 3.2.x? The HCL pages don't list any:(
man ti(4). My Netgear GA620s work just fine. Many thanks to Bill Paul, as
usual.
This issue was addressed on the -network mailing list LAST week. Apparently
you didn't search the archives very hard. ;^)
> > 'no buffer space' often comes when the output IFQ is full, which is
> > between 20 and 50 buffers. Are you sure you are seeing more than those
> > mbufs in use ?
>
> It occurs when about 105/128 mbufs (94%) are used.
ok, that's reasonable, with 50 bufs in the output queue and perhaps a
match
> What I would really like to do is to increase the number of
> partitions allowed in a disklabel. I really dislike having to
> mess with fdisk.
>
> The system defaults to 8. sys/diskslice.h seems to imply that
> you can compile up a kernel with a higher number.
it looks you
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 04:47:03PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > With a non-functioning route over isdn (i4b) I'm observing
> > that mbufs allocated soon reach the limit and then I'm getting
> > 'no buffer space' available. I'm not sure whether
>
> 'no buffer space' often comes when the output IFQ
> :>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> :>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> :>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
> :
> : It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with finding
On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 0:11:23 -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Masto wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see the use for it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> The thing is SO obviously flawed, that I wonder how many marketoid
>> drones it took to make sensible people think it is
In article <19990825113518.d83273.kithrup.freebsd.cvs-...@freebie.lemis.com>
you write:
>Correct. I lock a stripe at a time.
What people need to realize is that Greg is doing this locking in user mode.
As such, he has two real options:
1. Implement a vinum-specific ioctl that locks a region o
On Tuesday, 24 August 1999 at 22:28:10 -0700, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
>write:
>> Correct. I lock a stripe at a time.
>
> What people need to realize is that Greg is doing this locking in user mode.
>
> As such, he has two real options:
>
> 1. Implement a vinu
Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
> > > superuser. It could be restricted to specific users (say file owner +
> > > root)...
> >
> > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> Christopher Masto wrote:
> >
> > I don't see the use for it.
>
> :-)
>
> The thing is SO obviously flawed, that I wonder how many marketoid
> drones it took to make sensible people think it is actually useful.
> :-)
And how many programmers with nearly (or more th
Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
>
> The fact that Greg thinks it's necessary and desirable (and he has
> considerably more OS experience than a lot of the people who have decided it's
> a stupid idea) should alone say a lot for the idea.
I was waiting for someone else to bring up that point, because I mig
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 04:47:03PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > With a non-functioning route over isdn (i4b) I'm observing
> > that mbufs allocated soon reach the limit and then I'm getting
> > 'no buffer space' available. I'm not sure whether
>
> 'no buffer space' often comes when the output IF
> :>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> :>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> :>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
> :
> : It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with findin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Correct. I lock a stripe at a time.
What people need to realize is that Greg is doing this locking in user mode.
As such, he has two real options:
1. Implement a vinum-specific ioctl that locks a region of a file at the
device level, or
2.
>
> This isn't locking, it's access exclusion. It's also not correct for
> NSK.
what is the difference between locking and access exclusion? i was thinking
both are same (locking implies access exclusion). in other words, My idea of
mandatory locking is same as exclusive access to the file. a
>
> This isn't locking, it's access exclusion. It's also not correct for
> NSK.
what is the difference between locking and access exclusion? i was thinking
both are same (locking implies access exclusion). in other words, My idea of
mandatory locking is same as exclusive access to the file.
On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 8:31:23 +0530, Biju Susmer wrote:
> All the files under Tandem's NSK has mandatory locking. The file cannot be
> opened if another process has it opened. some thing like
>
> * if the file is opened for reading, any one can open it for
> reading but opening for
All the files under Tandem's NSK has mandatory locking. The file cannot be
opened if another process has it opened. some thing like
* if the file is opened for reading, any one can open it for
reading but opening for writing gives error
* if the file is open for writing, it can't be opened
Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Ryan wrote:
>
> > Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use
> > "uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one
> > instance per function/macro:
> [...]
> > Is there a reason for these checks n
On Tuesday, 24 August 1999 at 22:41:15 -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that BSD won't do this. SysV and Linux have
> this feature. Linux runs everywhere that FreeBSD does and has
> better features too... so why run BSD at all?
I assume you're talking about mandatory locking.
> > I think what people are missing here is that Vinum, when doing
> > software RAID, is implementing a type of namespace escape, only
> > it isn't a standard namespace escape.
>
> Interesting terminology. I think you've lost most people already.
I hope not. It's not that hard a concept. You c
On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 8:31:23 +0530, Biju Susmer wrote:
> All the files under Tandem's NSK has mandatory locking. The file cannot be
> opened if another process has it opened. some thing like
>
> * if the file is opened for reading, any one can open it for
> reading but opening fo
:> :Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
:>
:> We can't use devfs for this, the partition id is already embedded in the
:> dev_t and it has to stay that way to remain compatible with the
:> preexisting partition space.
:
:Too bad you are not as willing to abandon your e
> :> Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
> :
> :Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
>
> We can't use devfs for this, the partition id is already embedded in the
> dev_t and it has to stay that way to remain compatible with the
> pree
> > :I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
> > :perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS) that could significantly shorten
> > :time it takes fsck to check big filesystems, let's say 64GB? As it is now,
> > :it's almost unbearable. I naively thought softupdates would (al
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
> :
> :Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
> :
> : Terry Lambert
> : te...@lambert.org
>
On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 1:52:38 +, Terry Lambert wrote:
>>> I don't want to express an opinion about the need or otherwise
>>> for mandatory locking, but I would appreciate a teensy
>>> clarification of the problem domain:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:43:45PM +0930, Greg Lehey wr
All the files under Tandem's NSK has mandatory locking. The file cannot be
opened if another process has it opened. some thing like
* if the file is opened for reading, any one can open it for
reading but opening for writing gives error
* if the file is open for writing, it can't be opene
:> Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
:
:Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
:
: Terry Lambert
: te...@lambert.org
We can't use devfs for this, the partition id is a
Bill Fumerola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Ryan wrote:
>
> > Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use
> > "uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one
> > instance per function/macro:
> [...]
> > Is there a reaso
> :>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> :>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> :>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
> :
> : It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with finding
> > I don't want to express an opinion about the need or otherwise
> > for mandatory locking, but I would appreciate a teensy
> > clarification of the problem domain:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:43:45PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >> To write a block to a RAID-5 device, you need to:
> >>
>
On Tuesday, 24 August 1999 at 22:41:15 -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that BSD won't do this. SysV and Linux have
> this feature. Linux runs everywhere that FreeBSD does and has
> better features too... so why run BSD at all?
I assume you're talking about mandatory locking.
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> >
> > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
On further reflection, I'd go even further: anyone who can set the
lock can break the lock. Presumably if they know enough to explicitly
break the lock, then they
> > I think what people are missing here is that Vinum, when doing
> > software RAID, is implementing a type of namespace escape, only
> > it isn't a standard namespace escape.
>
> Interesting terminology. I think you've lost most people already.
I hope not. It's not that hard a concept. You
:> :Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
:>
:> We can't use devfs for this, the partition id is already embedded in the
:> dev_t and it has to stay that way to remain compatible with the
:> preexisting partition space.
:
:Too bad you are not as willing to abandon your
> :> Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
> :
> :Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
>
> We can't use devfs for this, the partition id is already embedded in the
> dev_t and it has to stay that way to remain compatible with the
> pre
> > :I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
> > :perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS) that could significantly shorten
> > :time it takes fsck to check big filesystems, let's say 64GB? As it is now,
> > :it's almost unbearable. I naively thought softupdates would (a
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
> :
> :Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
> :
> : Terry Lambert
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 1:52:38 +, Terry Lambert wrote:
>>> I don't want to express an opinion about the need or otherwise
>>> for mandatory locking, but I would appreciate a teensy
>>> clarification of the problem domain:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:43:45PM +0930, Greg Lehey w
:> Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
:
:Use devfs (it doesn't require major/minor numbers).
:
: Terry Lambert
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We can't use devfs for this, the partition id is
> :>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> :>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> :>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
> :
> : It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with findin
> > I don't want to express an opinion about the need or otherwise
> > for mandatory locking, but I would appreciate a teensy
> > clarification of the problem domain:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:43:45PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >> To write a block to a RAID-5 device, you need to:
> >>
>
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Ryan wrote:
> Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use
> "uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one
> instance per function/macro:
[...]
> Is there a reason for these checks not to use suser?
No. Eivind Eklund
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> >
> > How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
On further reflection, I'd go even further: anyone who can set the
lock can break the lock. Presumably if they know enough to explicitly
break the lock, then the
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
> :perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS) that could significantly shorten
> :time it takes fsck to check big filesystems, let's say 64GB? As it is now,
> :it's almost unbearable. I n
:: tttu uuus uppp minor layout for disks
:: mask for uminor
::
:Grrr. #ifdef PC98, NDOSPART is set to 16 instead of 4, requiring 5 bits
:(0,1,2-17). This leaves one bit that we can usurp.
:
:I'd
According to Julian Elischer:
> Mph Mph! Mmmmph!
> (damned gags)
devfs anyone ?
[runs for cover]
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT #73: Sat Jul 31 15:36:05 CEST 1999
To Unsubscribe: send mail to maj
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Ryan wrote:
> Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use
> "uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one
> instance per function/macro:
[...]
> Is there a reason for these checks not to use suser?
No. Eivind Eklund
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> mask for uminor
>
> Our only hope as far as I can tell is to take the upper two bits of the
> slice (bits 19 and 20) and use them for the partition instead.
>
> As far as I can tell, o
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, David Greenman wrote:
> >The structure appears to be backwards compatible.
> >
> >The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> >with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> >from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead
:minor device number:
:
:t = type
:
:u = unit (upper bits split off from lower)
:
:s = slice (assuming only 8 slices)
: 0 noslice
: 1 whole disk
: 2-5 s1,s2,s3,s4
: 6-8 unused
:
:p = partition
:
:-
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
> :perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS) that could significantly shorten
> :time it takes fsck to check big filesystems, let's say 64GB? As it is now,
> :it's almost unbearable. I
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
> Ok, so that means the program doesn't have to be so poorly written.
> It can read part of the file, then go to write it just after User 1
> locks that part of the file, so its write will block until User 1 is
> finished, but will still stomp over Use
:: It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with finding a bit
::in the minor number - I think they've pretty much all been taken.
::
::-DG
::
::David Greenman
:
:Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
:
: -Mat
:: tttu uuus uppp minor layout for disks
:: mask for uminor
::
:Grrr. #ifdef PC98, NDOSPART is set to 16 instead of 4, requiring 5 bits
:(0,1,2-17). This leaves one bit that we can usurp.
:
:I'
According to Julian Elischer:
> Mph Mph! Mmmmph!
> (damned gags)
devfs anyone ?
[runs for cover]
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT #73: Sat Jul 31 15:36:05 CEST 1999
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PRO
:>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
:>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
:>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
:
: It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with finding a bit
:in
On Tuesday, 24 August 1999 at 10:59:34 +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> Hi Greg, hackers list,
>
> I don't want to express an opinion about the need or otherwise
> for mandatory locking, but I would appreciate a teensy
> clarification of the problem domain:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:43:45PM +0930
:I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
:perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS) that could significantly shorten
:time it takes fsck to check big filesystems, let's say 64GB? As it is now,
:it's almost unbearable. I naively thought softupdates would (almost)
:eliminate
:It makes sense; We wouldn't be the first to do it either (IRIX has
:supported 16 partitions per spindle for years).
:
:Have you made the change on your hackbox already to make sure it doesn't
:have any negative implications?
:
:- mark
:
:
:Mark Newton Email:
>The structure appears to be backwards compatible.
>
>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
It seems reasonable to me,
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I don't know about all of you, but for the last few years I've been
> > running out of partitions! It's even worse with today's big disks.
>
> I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you
Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use
"uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one
instance per function/macro:
./kern/kern_ktrace.c- ktrops(), ktrcanset()
./nfs/nfs_subs.c- nfsrv_fhtoup()
./posix4/p1003
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> mask for uminor
>
> Our only hope as far as I can tell is to take the upper two bits of the
> slice (bits 19 and 20) and use them for the partition instead.
>
> As far as I can tell,
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I don't know about all of you, but for the last few years I've been
> running out of partitions! It's even worse with today's big disks.
I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
It makes sense; We wouldn't be the first to do it either
After rechecking all the jumpers it turns out that the supplier
had set the core voltage to 2.2V instead of 2.4V!
Thanx for all the help!
john
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 02:33:48PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I am experiencing reproducible crashes with FreeBSD (3.2-STABLE) on
> :a K6/3-45
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, David Greenman wrote:
> >The structure appears to be backwards compatible.
> >
> >The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> >with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> >from 8 to 16 partitions. Instea
What are the advantages and disadvantages of partitions?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
I don't know about all of you, but for the last few years I've been
running out of partitions! It's even worse with today's big disks.
The last disk I installed I had to resort to using two fdisk slices on
a single disk:
apollo:/usr/src/sys# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks UsedA
:minor device number:
:
:t = type
:
:u = unit (upper bits split off from lower)
:
:s = slice (assuming only 8 slices)
: 0 noslice
: 1 whole disk
: 2-5 s1,s2,s3,s4
: 6-8 unused
:
:p = partition
:
:-
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
> Ok, so that means the program doesn't have to be so poorly written.
> It can read part of the file, then go to write it just after User 1
> locks that part of the file, so its write will block until User 1 is
> finished, but will still stomp over Us
Are timeouts executed in interrupt context?
Nick
--
e-Mail: hi...@skylink.it
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
:: It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with finding a bit
::in the minor number - I think they've pretty much all been taken.
::
::-DG
::
::David Greenman
:
:Cripes! Now that is really annoying. da0a is 4,0 and da1a is 4,8.
:
: -Ma
Ok, if you suggested the TCP_NODELAY option you were right. Once we set this
FreeBSD sent 25 msgs/second, Linux did 22 msgs/second and HPSUX did 15
msgs/second. (we TCP_NODELAY on all platforms)
Is the Linux Nangle algo broken/different?
Thanks for all the help.
Wayne
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Wayn
:I don't see how 2 could make break the API - all a process in this
:state can do is spin trying to serve SIGBUSs. I think HPUX may KILL
:processes in this state. Yep, on HPUX 10.10 when I run my test
:program (included at the bottom of this mail) I get:
:
:Pid 2717 was killed due to failure in wr
:>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
:>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
:>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
:
: It seems reasonable to me, although there may be issues with finding a bit
:i
On Tuesday, 24 August 1999 at 10:59:34 +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> Hi Greg, hackers list,
>
> I don't want to express an opinion about the need or otherwise
> for mandatory locking, but I would appreciate a teensy
> clarification of the problem domain:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:43:45PM +093
:I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
:perhaps of any initiatives (except XFS) that could significantly shorten
:time it takes fsck to check big filesystems, let's say 64GB? As it is now,
:it's almost unbearable. I naively thought softupdates would (almost)
:eliminat
:It makes sense; We wouldn't be the first to do it either (IRIX has
:supported 16 partitions per spindle for years).
:
:Have you made the change on your hackbox already to make sure it doesn't
:have any negative implications?
:
:- mark
:
:
:Mark Newton Email:
>The structure appears to be backwards compatible.
>
>The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
>with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
>from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
It seems reasonable to me
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I don't know about all of you, but for the last few years I've been
> > running out of partitions! It's even worse with today's big disks.
>
> I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you
Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use
"uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one
instance per function/macro:
./kern/kern_ktrace.c- ktrops(), ktrcanset()
./nfs/nfs_subs.c- nfsrv_fhtoup()
./posix4/p100
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I don't know about all of you, but for the last few years I've been
> running out of partitions! It's even worse with today's big disks.
I know it's not the answer, it's just related question: do you know
perhaps of any initiatives (except XF
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> The question I am putting to the group is whether it is "time" for us,
> with today's large disks, to increase the system-compiled default
> from 8 to 16 partitions. Instead of a-h we would have a-p
It makes sense; We wouldn't be the first to do it eithe
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > I don't like restricting the breaking of mandatory locks to the
> > superuser. It could be restricted to specific users (say file owner +
> > root)...
>
> How 'bout "anyone who can kill the process holding the lock?"
+ file ow
After rechecking all the jumpers it turns out that the supplier
had set the core voltage to 2.2V instead of 2.4V!
Thanx for all the help!
john
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 02:33:48PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I am experiencing reproducible crashes with FreeBSD (3.2-STABLE) on
> :a K6/3-4
What are the advantages and disadvantages of partitions?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
I don't know about all of you, but for the last few years I've been
running out of partitions! It's even worse with today's big disks.
The last disk I installed I had to resort to using two fdisk slices on
a single disk:
apollo:/usr/src/sys# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used
Christoph Kukulies writes:
>
>With a non-functioning route over isdn (i4b) I'm observing
>that mbufs allocated soon reach the limit and then I'm getting
>'no buffer space' available. I'm not sure whether
>the networking stack is still usable for other purposes
>but I prefer to reboot.
>
>I just wan
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
