hi,
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 03:37:17AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > Arg.. I wish you had contacted me before doing this work. From looking at
> > your patch, your using an old copy of my work. The newest one is available
> > at: http://testbed.q9media.net/freebsd/whois.patch and will
In local.freebsd-hackers, you wrote:
>I would appreciate comments on the following patch:
>http://testbed.q9media.net/freebsd/whois.20010622.patch
>
>o Implement recursive IP Address searches based on the results of
> a query to ARIN. This allows a user to type 'whois 210
Hi hackers,
I've used some time writing a custom natd like daemon which makes som
speciel packet processing.
One of the issues with the natd approach is the large amount of
context-switches it gives.
This can be a real performance problem on very loaded networks. Would it be
possible to do this w
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 03:37:17AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Mike Barcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Arg.. I wish you had contacted me before doing this work. From looking at
> > your patch, your using an old copy of my work. The newest one is available
> > at: http://testbed.q9
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:08:21PM +0300, Alexey Zelkin wrote:
>
> For example you can have following string in your whoisservers
> configuration file (system wide -- /usr/share/misc/whoiservers
> or personal ~/.whoisservers):
System wide configuration files should be in /etc, not /usr/share/mis
On 21 Jun, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> For domain names it works without '-Q' too. The main problem not with
> domain names wich have "." found via whois-servers.net, but for
> identificators or subnets without suffix, like:
>
> whois -c ru XXX-RIPN
> whois -c ru 123.123.123.123
What about /etc
Sorry to bother you people, but I can´t get anyone to bite on -questions or
-isp for either of these, over the last couple of days :
1.
FBSD 4.3R GENERIC, dmesg.boot shows
ad0: 9541MB [19386/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA100
ad1: 73308MB [148945/16/63] at ata0-slave UDMA100
acd0: CDROM at ata1-
Volker Stolz([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.22 10:59:57 +:
> This and some of the other stuff discussed recently looks like what
> other people have been building into whois-*servers* like whois.thur.de
> by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (just try 'whois -h whois.thur.de
> 210.139.255.223').
> Why not keep w
[You may get better responses if you send 2 seperate emails with one
question in each]
Len Conrad wrote:
> ad1: 73308MB [148945/16/63] at ata0-slave UDMA100
If it's any help, I'm using that exact same drive currently and it's
sort of working. I'm having trouble with random panics on this system
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> According to the red daemon book, alias vnodes are used to make cache
> coherent (vp as a key). But getblk() stuff does not seem to check it.
> This makes me feel the code is there for historical reasons.
The "BSD 4.4" book was written about a system without a
unified VM an
>[You may get better responses if you send 2 seperate emails with one
>question in each]
I didn´t want to send TWO OT msgs :)))
>Did you use "dangerously dedicated" mode? I was able to get a booting,
>running system on this drive using "dangerously dedicated" mode.
I´m booting off ad0. When f
Len Conrad wrote:
>
> >[You may get better responses if you send 2 seperate emails with one
> >question in each]
>
> I didn´t want to send TWO OT msgs :)))
Tradeoff. I almost didn't read the message because I was confused by the
subject line. Other's might complain if you sent two OT messages.
I´m setting up a couple of outbound, high-volume mail gateways that need
some kind fairly quick failover when their primary DNS is down, to use
another DNS. The behavior available in some resolvers seems sufficient.
I´ve seen resolv.conf options of such as attempts:4 and timeout:2 in the
DNS &
On 6/22/01 4:59 AM, Volker Stolz at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In local.freebsd-hackers, you wrote:
>> I would appreciate comments on the following patch:
>> http://testbed.q9media.net/freebsd/whois.20010622.patch
>>
>> o Implement recursive IP Address searches b
Hi -hackers,
Several people have made it known to me that games such as Quake2
which ran fine with sound under the 4.2 kernel are not able to have
sound in 4.3. I have verified this myself - with quake2 under 4.3
ktrace reports that opening /dev/dsp fails with EBUSY - even though
nothing is usin
Farooq Mela wrote:
> Hi -hackers,
>
> Several people have made it known to me that games such as Quake2
> which ran fine with sound under the 4.2 kernel are not able to have
> sound in 4.3. I have verified this myself - with quake2 under 4.3
> ktrace reports that opening /dev/dsp fails with EBUS
Here is the code for a scsi removable media drive. If this is to become a
module, the cam/scsi attachment must be removed. I have tried calling
cam_sim_free() and xpt_bus_deregister() but when the module is reloaded, the
cam system assigns the next higher minor device number, and then crashes
w
Wrong list. Send this to -scsi
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, j mckitrick wrote:
>
> Here is the code for a scsi removable media drive. If this is to become a
> module, the cam/scsi attachment must be removed. I have tried calling
> cam_sim_free() and xpt_bus_deregister() but when the module is reload
Hey all,
This is a request for some simple changes to the kernel configuration stuff
that would be nice to have if someone wants to do them before I finally (if
ever) get around to doing it. Both have to do with making our kernel config
stuff more multi-platform friendly.
1) Split sys/i386/conf
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:41:09AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
|
| Wrong list. Send this to -scsi
Yeah, i figured i would get this response. But at least it's a response.
:-)
The same post to -scsi went unanswered, so i thought i would try here. Oh,
well.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL P
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> This is a request for some simple changes to the kernel configuration stuff
> that would be nice to have if someone wants to do them before I finally (if
> ever) get around to doing it. Both have to do with making our kernel config
> stuf
"oh"
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, j mckitrick wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:41:09AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> |
> | Wrong list. Send this to -scsi
>
> Yeah, i figured i would get this response. But at least it's a response.
> :-)
> The same post to -scsi went unanswered, so i thought i woul
Mike Barcroft([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.22 12:25:33 +:
> On 6/22/01 4:59 AM, Volker Stolz at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > In local.freebsd-hackers, you wrote:
> >> I would appreciate comments on the following patch:
> >> http://testbed.q9media
On 22-Jun-01 Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> This is a request for some simple changes to the kernel configuration stuff
>> that would be nice to have if someone wants to do them before I finally (if
>> ever) get around to doing it. Both
> >
> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
>
> Sure, fine. I don't really care which, I just would like the problem solved
> somehow. :)
I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be playing
me false.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Farooq Mela wrote:
> Hi -hackers,
>
> Several people have made it known to me that games such as Quake2
> which ran fine with sound under the 4.2 kernel are not able to have
> sound in 4.3. I have verified this myself - with quake2 under 4.3
> ktrace reports that opening /d
Jim Durham wrote:
> Are you running gnome desktop? I've been thrashing with esd and it sounds
> somewhat similar. lsof reports that /dev/dsp is not open to any process,
> but if you try to run timidity, it says "/dev/dsp busy". I have killed esd
> and made it work, but not always. I don't know wha
On 22-Jun-01 Matthew Jacob wrote:
>> >
>> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
>>
>> Sure, fine. I don't really care which, I just would like the problem solved
>> somehow. :)
>
> I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
> years either Bruce or Peter or both said
> I've also seen a -STABLE box unable to open the /dev/dsp file (open
> returns EBUSY) although both fstat and lsof didn't see any process with
> this file opened. This second problem was happening even when trying to
> ``cat /dev/dsp'' so it's probably not be related to the Linux emulation.
the
>
> The thing I like though is that when my test box hangs, I have the kernel.debug
> still accessible so I can pull up remote gdb on the machine. Hence the desire
> to share sys/compile over NFS as well.
>
Yes, that's helpful too.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than sys/compile/FOO.
Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. That way I can build
GENERIC for both i386 and pc98 at the same time without resorting to
the GENERIC98 hack I use no
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
>
> sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
I thought it was sys/arch/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile? ;)
Aren't you a NetBSD developer[*]?
--
wca
[*] Sorry, couldn't resist.
To Unsubsc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob writes:
: Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
:
: sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
That would be my second chopice (assumnig that we really do do it like
NetBSD and use ${MACHINE} rather than ${MACHINE_ARCH}).
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EM
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Why can't we do it like NetBSD and have
> >
> > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
>
> I thought it was sys/arch/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile? ;)
> Aren't you a NetBSD develop
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Will Andrews writes:
: I thought it was sys/arch/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile? ;)
: Aren't you a NetBSD developer[*]?
Actually, it is sys/arch/${MACHINE}/compile since you can have
different machines based on the same machine_arch. Look at the number
of mips, 60k, powe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob writes:
: Yes, and you're right. But we'll probably never do this (tm).
I keep trying :-)
However, I think the following would work for
sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO. Note, I only did i386, but could do
others as well fairly quickly.
Warner
Index: sys
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:43:58AM -0700, Matthew Jacob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Yes, and you're right. But we'll probably never do this (tm).
Never say never. I for one am in favor of that system. =)
Unfortunately at the moment we have sys/${MACHINE}/compile rather
than sys/arch/${MACHINE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Warner Losh writes:
: However, I think the following would work for
: sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO. Note, I only did i386, but could do
: others as well fairly quickly.
Actually, the last patch is bad. Try this one. You will need to
mkdir sys/${MACHINE}/compile. T
On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than
>: sys/compile/FOO.
>
> Please use ${MACHINE}, not ${MACHINE_ARCH}. That way I can build
> GENERIC for both i386 and pc98 at the same time wit
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: Sure, sounds good. Actually, with mjacob's suggestion, I would go with
: sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO
You are behind on your email. I've already posted patches that do
exactly this. It turns out to be very easy. I've also built a kernel
with
On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
>: Sure, sounds good. Actually, with mjacob's suggestion, I would go with
>: sys/${MACHINE}/compile/FOO
>
> You are behind on your email. I've already posted patches that do
> exactly this. It turns out to b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Baldwin writes:
: I think we are just getting e-mails crossed. :) Sounds good. Can't wait to
: see the commit. :) Now to get someone to tackle the first item on the list...
Hey, I did my part for the cause. Let someone else do NOTES.
Warner
To Unsubscribe
¿Ë·RªºªB¤Í; ¦b¦¹´£¨Ñ2001¦~³Ì·s¸£¤O¶}µo§Þ³N
«e¨¥:
®Ú¾Ú¬ì¾Ç¬ã¨sÅã¥Ü¡A§Ṳ́HÃþ¤j¸£¥i§l¦¬°O¾Ð2000¸U¥»¹Ï®Ñ¤j·§10ӹϮÑÀ]
¤§¶q¡A¥un²ß±o¥¿½Tªº°O¾Ð¤èªk¡A¥²¯à±N§Ṳ́j¸£µo´§²OºvºÉP¡A¹ï¤H¡A¨Æ
¡Aª«¥t¦³¤@µf¤£¦P¨¤«×¨£¸Ñ¡AÂǦ¹½Òµ{¦@¦P±´¯Á¤j¸£¤F¯«©_¡C
¡·"§Ú̪º±M·~
§Ų́㦳¥¿²Îªº^°êMind Maps¤ß´¼Ã¸¹Ïªkª
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:07:16AM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> I like your idea.
> I'm serving tunnel broker using DTCP (Dynamic Tunnel Configuration
> Protocol) in our ISP. So, I'm grad if we have dynamic gif creation,
> too.
Ok, after a week and a half of doing other things, I've got a patc
Hi,
There has been some talks earlier about importing the OpenBSD code for
encryption hardware support.
As I now has prototypes avaliable of low cost PCI and MiniPCI boards,
moving to production in a couple of weeks, I would like to check up on
the work, as I would really like to see FreeBSD sup
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:20:33 -0700
> Soren Kristensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
soren> There has been some talks earlier about importing the OpenBSD code for
soren> encryption hardware support.
soren> As I now has prototypes avaliable of low cost PCI and MiniPCI boards,
soren> moving t
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Hi,
>
>There has been some talks earlier about importing the OpenBSD code for
>encryption hardware support.
>
>As I now has prototypes avaliable of low cost PCI and MiniPCI boards,
>moving to production in a couple of weeks, I would like to check up on
>th
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Split sys/i386/conf/NOTES up into MI and MD parts. The MI portion would
>become sys/conf/NOTES and would contain all the machine independent
>options and devices. The MD options and devices would live in
>sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/conf/NOTES.
On 22-Jun-01 Dima Dorfman wrote:
> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) Split sys/i386/conf/NOTES up into MI and MD parts. The MI portion would
>>become sys/conf/NOTES and would contain all the machine independent
>>options and devices. The MD options and devices would live in
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > >
> > > sys/${MACHINE_ARCH}/compile?
> >
> > Sure, fine. I don't really care which, I just would like the problem solve
d
> > somehow. :)
>
> I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
> years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!,
> > I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
> > years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be playing
> > me false.
>
> If I've said that before (and I'm not sure that I have), I have changed my
> mind. I would prefer sys/{arch}/compile.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob writes:
: > > I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the last 3-4
: > > years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be playing
: > > me false.
: >
: > If I've said that before (and I'm not sure that I have
On 22-Jun-01 Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Jacob
> writes:
>: > > I seem to recall that the 2 or 3 times I've brought this up over the
>: > > last 3-4
>: > > years either Bruce or Peter or both said No!, but my memory could be
>: > > playing
>: > > me false.
>: >
>:
Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
My question is, from a performance standpoint, in what situations are
these techniques mo
* E.B. Dreger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 18:01] wrote:
> Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
>
> AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
>
> I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
> straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
>
> My question is, f
On Friday, June 22, 2001, at 07:01 PM, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
>
> AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
>
> I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
> straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
>
> My question is, f
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:43:44AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> > ad1: 73308MB [148945/16/63] at ata0-slave UDMA100
>
> If it's any help, I'm using that exact same drive currently and it's
> sort of working. I'm having trouble with random panics on this system,
> but I haven't yet isolated as to
Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:43:44AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
>
> > > ad1: 73308MB [148945/16/63] at ata0-slave UDMA100
> >
> > If it's any help, I'm using that exact same drive currently and it's
> > sort of working. I'm having trouble with random panics on this system,
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 07:39:16PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> It's on an ASUS A7V133 mobo. The controller is Promise ATA100. The one
> that I'm having trouble with is running in UDMA100. Is it possible that
> UDMA100 doesn't work right?
>
> Thoughts?
I imagine it's possible, but it would seem u
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Josh Osborne wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2001, at 07:01 PM, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> > My question is, from a performance standpoint, in what situations are
> > these techniques most appropriate?
> AIO is good when you are not receiving much data (or not receiving
> it very f
[...]
>> AIO is good when you are not receiving much data (or not receiving
>> it very frequently), and presumably want very low latency.
>
> What if you want good performance with "moderate" disk IO, say ten
> to twenty megabytes per second continuously?
I don't know if select/kqueue/poll "work"
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Josh Osborne wrote:
> [...]
> >> AIO is good when you are not receiving much data (or not receiving
> >> it very frequently), and presumably want very low latency.
> >
> > What if you want good performance with "moderate" disk IO, say ten
> > to twenty megabytes per second co
"E.B. Dreger" wrote:
>
> Quick question, hopefully not too basic for this list:
>
> AIO vs. non-blocking IO vs. kernel queues
>
> I'm familiar with (and *love*) kernel queues. Non-blocking IO is
> straightforward. AIO seems simple enough.
>
> My question is, from a performance standpoint, in
Josh Osborne wrote:
> BSD/OS had select working for FFS files (returns ready to read
> if the block the file pointer is at is in the buffer cache, and
> sends a read ahead request). Or at least they (Paul?) calmed
> they did, I never tested it.
This would be good to see in FreeBSD.
> I try to a
Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:52:01, jhb (John Baldwin) wrote about "Two Junior Kernel
Hacker tasks..":
> 2) Build kernels in sys/compile/${MACHINE_ARCH}/FOO rather than sys/compile/FOO.
I'd like to qualify the whole idea to put compilation data in some subdirectory
of /usr/src as harmful. `make bu
Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 15:43:21, LConrad (Len Conrad) wrote about "2nd ata drive, and
resolv.conf options":
> I'm setting up a couple of outbound, high-volume mail gateways that need
> some kind fairly quick failover when their primary DNS is down, to use
> another DNS. The behavior available
66 matches
Mail list logo
