>[ workstation ] [ mail server ]
>[192.168.10.250]---[ small ][ 192.168.10.15]
>[192.168.20.250]---[ switch ][ 192.168.20.15]
> |
> |
> [router 192.168.10.1]
>
On 3/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 08:59 PM 3/17/2006 -0800, Glenn Dawson wrote:
> | At 08:34 PM 3/17/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> | >I'm having a strange issue here and thought maybe someone on this list
> might
> | >have some ideas. I have tried to figure it out
At 08:59 PM 3/17/2006 -0800, Glenn Dawson wrote:
| At 08:34 PM 3/17/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >I'm having a strange issue here and thought maybe someone on this list might
| >have some ideas. I have tried to figure it out for a couple of days, but no
| >luck yet. The problem seems to be ar
At 08:59 PM 3/17/2006 -0800, Glenn Dawson wrote:
| At 08:34 PM 3/17/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >I'm having a strange issue here and thought maybe someone on this list might
| >have some ideas. I have tried to figure it out for a couple of days, but no
| >luck yet. The problem seems to be ar
At 08:34 PM 3/17/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having a strange issue here and thought maybe someone on this list might
have some ideas. I have tried to figure it out for a couple of days, but no
luck yet. The problem seems to be around reporting of arp information.
Here is my basic confi
I'm having a strange issue here and thought maybe someone on this list might
have some ideas. I have tried to figure it out for a couple of days, but no
luck yet. The problem seems to be around reporting of arp information.
Here is my basic config. I have my workstation (a windows XP box) with
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:11:22AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:02:17PM +0100, Frank Behrens wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I propose a change, that dhclient sends always the current hostname
> >>to the server, the value can be overwritten in dhcli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:02:17PM +0100, Frank Behrens wrote:
I propose a change, that dhclient sends always the current hostname
to the server, the value can be overwritten in dhclient.conf. I see
no negative impact, because the server has always the possibility t
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 17 March 2006 12:00, Tom Daly wrote:
>>> Because CPU 1 is a hyperthread. So is CPU 3 for that matter.
>>
>> That makes sense, but CPU 3 shows up in top without setting
>> machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1. ???
>
> Yes, that's a bug.
I saw the same thing on my AMD6
On Friday 17 March 2006 12:00, Tom Daly wrote:
> > Because CPU 1 is a hyperthread. So is CPU 3 for that matter.
>
> That makes sense, but CPU 3 shows up in top without setting
> machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1. ???
Yes, that's a bug.
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeB
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:04:36PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>
> >just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's
> >definitely
> >better than the panics with the unpatched vers
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Anish Mistry wrote:
> On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:45, Ensel Sharon wrote:
> > I have successfully configured and used a GBDE. I followed these
> > instructions:
> >
> > http://0x06.sigabrt.de/howtos/freebsd_encrypted_image_howto.html
> >
> > Easy. No problem.
> >
> > Howe
Because CPU 1 is a hyperthread. So is CPU 3 for that matter.
That makes sense, but CPU 3 shows up in top without setting
machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1. ???
Tom
--
Thomas J. Daly
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
http://www.dyndns.com/
__
On Friday 17 March 2006 09:04, Tom Daly wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm running FreeBSD 6.0 Release (amd64) on Dell Poweredge 2850s. So far,
> so good. I'm doing a pretty vanilla install of things, enabling SMP in the
> kernel, and that's pretty much it. This server has 2 EM64T CPUs in it.
>
> When looking a
Jacques Marneweck wrote:
Danny Braniss wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
just a
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:02:17PM +0100, Frank Behrens wrote:
> I propose a change, that dhclient sends always the current hostname
> to the server, the value can be overwritten in dhclient.conf. I see
> no negative impact, because the server has always the possibility to
> reject the name and
Hi,
I tried to setup a new FreeBSD 6.1-BETA2 client and enabled in
sysinstall DHCP configuration for the interface. It was no problem
and the system runs fine.
But then I was surprised that my nameserver
FreeBSD 6.1-PRERELEASE-200602270917 with BIND9 and
"Internet Systems Consortium DHCP Serve
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:45, Ensel Sharon wrote:
> I have successfully configured and used a GBDE. I followed these
> instructions:
>
> http://0x06.sigabrt.de/howtos/freebsd_encrypted_image_howto.html
>
> Easy. No problem.
>
> However, when I place the backing-store-file on a mounted sshfs
>
Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's
definitely
better than the panics with the unpatched version. in other words,
IMHO, it does not break anything, and it actualy fixes somethin
Hi,
I'm running FreeBSD 6.0 Release (amd64) on Dell Poweredge 2850s. So far,
so good. I'm doing a pretty vanilla install of things, enabling SMP in the
kernel, and that's pretty much it. This server has 2 EM64T CPUs in it.
When looking at top, CPU 1 rarely shows up with processes on it. systat
Danny Braniss wrote:
>> Daichi GOTO wrote:
>>
>>> All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
>>> and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
>>>
>> OK. How about a merge?
>>
>> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jan Mikkelsen.
>>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:14:25AM -0800, Jason Evans wrote:
> >I'd hate to force PowerDNS users to recompile their libc for me :-)
>
> Yes, you should be able to use LD_PRELOAD to pre-load a shared library
> that has nothing but malloc.o in it. In order to build jemalloc on 6.x,
> you will als
> Daichi GOTO wrote:
> > All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
> > and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
>
> OK. How about a merge?
>
> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jan Mikkelsen.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patc
bert hubert wrote:
Thanks Jason, this has helped narrow down the problem significantly. From
this I understand that to work around this problem, I have some options:
1) tweak my code to not allocate such a large amount of small objects
2) move away from malloc/free based c++ allocators
3) recomp
24 matches
Mail list logo
