Hi All,
After getting up this morning, I saw these dead lines on my screen:
%Kernel trap 9 with interrupts disabled
Fatal trap 9: general protection fault while in kernel mode
Instruction pointer = 0x1d:0x2813d428
Stack pointer = 0x10:0xdb32ffe8
frame pointer = 0x10:0xbfbffc00
Code segment = base
My experience with the current SMP kernel is it works very well
on a 4 CPU opteron. That was 5.x-CURRENT a few months back
at that point the new ULE scheduler was unusable as in it caused
major delays in processing server apps. switched back to the
old BSD one and all was good. Not sure it these is
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Posted to freebsd-smp but didn't get too many replies, so I apologize for
I am on that list too but I can't remember your posting.
cross posting ahead of time. Need to configure groupware server and
multiprotocol wireless proxy for aproximatly 2500 accounts. Applicatio
Posted to freebsd-smp but didn't get too many replies, so I apologize for
cross posting ahead of time. Need to configure groupware server and
multiprotocol wireless proxy for aproximatly 2500 accounts. Application
is heavily multi threaded and willrequire alot of CPU power. The OS will
be FreeBSD
Bruce M Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:35:07PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > > If we were to implement POSIX spawn(), we'd need something like this.
> > Uh, no. posix_spawn(3) can be implemented entirely in userland and
> > does not require any special ker
Hi!
The system doesn't wait for me to open the reader, I get the message
instantly.
I worked on 4.7 & still does (also on linux, netbsd, ... :-) )
This is NetBSD 1.6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# echo "test" > f &
[1] 2383
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# cat < f
test
[1]+ Doneecho "t
Is the user's shell listed in /etc/shells? It must be there for ftpd to
let them in.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Vladimir Terziev wrote:
>
> I run FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE machine. I use ftpd for ftp server daemon. It has
> very strange behavior with one of user accounts on my machine. Every one user
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:35:07PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > If we were to implement POSIX spawn(), we'd need something like this.
>
> Uh, no. posix_spawn(3) can be implemented entirely in userland and
> does not require any special kernel support.
Discussions with peter@ and others
Bruce M Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:21:25PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > You could, of course, write a kernel API for creating processes from
> > scratch. They'd still need a parent, but you can use init(8) (pid 1)
> > for that.
> If we were to impleme
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:21:25PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> You could, of course, write a kernel API for creating processes from
> scratch. They'd still need a parent, but you can use init(8) (pid 1)
> for that.
If we were to implement POSIX spawn(), we'd need something like this.
So t
10 matches
Mail list logo
