Hi guys,
What is the best way to control a process (running in chroot env):
1- Execution time
2- Memory limit
And to be able to kill the process when it breaks this limits.
Finally, i would like to know the exit status of the process or the
signal that killed it (sigfault, .)
The idea is tha
latest pxeboot (7.1):
mother-boardNIC/LOM CPU
- --- ---
Intel SWV25 em xeonworks fine
SUN X2200bgeamd works fine
DELL PE 2950 bcexeonfailes 95% of the times
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Provided the module in question is contemplated for delivery
> as a port, rather than as part of the base -- so that having a build
> dependency on a port is tolerable -- perhaps it would be more easily
> built using devel/gmake?
You'd have to reproduce most of /usr/s
Maslan, good day.
Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:53:09AM +, Maslan wrote:
> What is the best way to control a process (running in chroot env):
> 1- Execution time
> 2- Memory limit
> And to be able to kill the process when it breaks this limits.
man 2 setrlimit
> Finally, i would like to know the e
On 2 Dec 2008, at 13:33 , Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Provided the module in question is contemplated for delivery
as a port, rather than as part of the base -- so that having a build
dependency on a port is tolerable -- perhaps it would be more easily
built using deve
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:08:25 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Git and Mercurial cannot import Subversion $FreeBSD$ lines so far,
>>> and you may end up submitting patches that include unexpanded forms
>>> of the "$FreeBSD: $" text. These will fail to apply if they
>>> same patch touches ne
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:48:17PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> latest pxeboot (7.1):
> mother-boardNIC/LOM CPU
> - --- ---
> Intel SWV25 em xeonworks fine
> SUN X2200bgeamd works fine
> DELL PE 2950 bcexeon
Not sure where to go with this one any help appreciated:-
FreeBSD dedicated11.multiplay.co.uk 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #4: Tue Dec 2 16:53:30 UTC 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MULTIPLAY i386
kgdb kernel /var/crash/vmcore.1
GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD]
Copyright 2004 Free
I have a machine running 7.0-STABLE/amd64 and it has suddenly
stopped booting. It just leaves me at the debugger with this message:
Fatal trap 9: general protection fault while in kernel mode
cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
instruction pointer = 0x8:0x804d913d
stack pointer = 0x10:0x
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:42:58PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> Not sure where to go with this one any help appreciated:-
> FreeBSD dedicated11.multiplay.co.uk 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE
> #4: Tue Dec 2 16:53:30 UTC 2008
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MULTIPLAY i386
>
>
Hi,
While trying to get a linux binary running on FreeBSD I encountered
the following problem during serial port I/O.
Dec 1 22:22:34 soekris kernel: linux: pid 7239 (linuxbinary): ioctl
fd=0, cmd=0x5409 ('T',9) is not implemented
0x5409 turns out to be TCSBRK, which is not implemented (
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:56:28PM +0100, Arjan van der Velde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While trying to get a linux binary running on FreeBSD I encountered
> the following problem during serial port I/O.
>
> Dec 1 22:22:34 soekris kernel: linux: pid 7239 (linuxbinary): ioctl
> fd=0, cmd=0x5409 ('T',9
Yes every time, I've got a half life 2 dedicated install mounted under unionfs:-
mount -t unionfs -o noatime -o below /usr/local/games/hl2ds
/usr/local/games/servers/1
As soon as I start the server from under servers/1 the machine panics I'm
thinking its
a combination of the Linux ABI and union
Hello Arjan,
* Arjan van der Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While trying to get a linux binary running on FreeBSD I encountered the
> following problem during serial port I/O.
>
> Dec 1 22:22:34 soekris kernel: linux: pid 7239 (linuxbinary): ioctl
> fd=0, cmd=0x5409 ('T',9) is not implemen
>While trying to get = a linux binary running on FreeBSD I encountered
>the following prob= lem during serial port I/O.
>
>Dec 1 22:22:34 soekris kernel: = linux: pid 7239 (linuxbinary): ioctl
>fd=0, cmd=0x5409 ('T',9) = is not implemented
>
>0x5409 turns out to be TCSBRK, whi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
[ ... ]
>I'm running 6-STABLE (6.4-PRE as of 24 Nov right now), tcsh 6.15.00, which
>shows
>
> tcsh 6.15.00 (Astron) 2007-03-03 (i386-intel-FreeBSD) options
> wide,nls,dl,al,kan,sm,rh,color,filec
>
>as $version.
>
>The symptom is that when I do a long-ish
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:08:25 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Git and Mercurial cannot import Subversion $FreeBSD$ lines so far,
and you may end up submitting patches that include unexpanded forms
of the "$
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a "sufficiently large" hierarchy (e.g., via "tar zcpf" or "rm
-fr") will fail to "visit" some subdirectories, typically apparently
acting as if the su
I decided to take the comments about testing ZFS to heart --- so I decided
to try copying my 7.0 "v6" ZFS configuration into a qemu instance and
upgrading it. To do this, I carefully copied my UFS boot partition and my
ZFS partion to a physical USB disk that I could put on a system to do the
test.
Hello hackers,
I was wondering if there is a work around for this...
In 8.0-current I have installed the new version of ZFS and upgraded the
filing systems to 13. I had a thought that I would make a zfs for /tmp and set
the exec to no (thinking that nothing should ever be exec
Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote:
Hello hackers,
I was wondering if there is a work around for this...
In 8.0-current I have installed the new version of ZFS and upgraded the
filing systems to 13. I had a thought that I would make a zfs for /tmp and set
the exec to no (thinking that nothing should
jT, good day.
Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 07:15:55PM -0500, jT wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that `$FreeBSD$' is extracted in unexpanded form by the current
> > svn->hg converter is a limitation of the Python bindings of Subversion.
> >
setrlimit(2)
Ok thanks a lot
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maslan, good day.
>
> Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:53:09AM +, Maslan wrote:
>> What is the best way to control a process (running in chroot env):
>> 1- Execution time
>> 2- Memory limit
>> A
23 matches
Mail list logo
