On 19/08/2011 14:21, Aled Morris wrote:
On 19 August 2011 11:15, Tom Evans wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Yuri wrote:
Some latest hard drives have logical sectors of 512 byte when they
actually
have 4k physical sectors.
...
Shouldn't UFS and ZFS drivers be able to either read
I'm very sorry.
Thanks to all!
-p0 was the problem.
Now it compiles and works.
I tried new vi with russian text and everything is fine.
Thank you!
And I'll try new patch
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/nvi-iconv-Call-for-test-tp4698373p4722191.html
Sent from
Just checked your new patch. Works too. Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/nvi-iconv-Call-for-test-tp4698373p4723231.html
Sent from the freebsd-hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-hackers@fr
>> I guess formatting the filesystem for 4k sectors on a 512b drive would still
>> work but it would be suboptimal. What would the performance penalty be in
>> reality?
>
> It would be suboptimal but only for the slight waste of space that would
> have otherwise been reclaimed if the block or frag
On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:25:20 am John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, August 06, 2011 1:57:35 pm Yuri wrote:
> > On 08/06/2011 02:11, Alexander Best wrote:
> > > On Fri Aug 5 11, Yuri wrote:
> > >> I have the process that first runs in 3 threads but later two active
> > >> threads exit.
> > >>
Hai hacker,
I have received the kernel log on freebsd 8.2
kernel log messages:
+++ /tmp/security.qHlmbCRv2011-08-23 03:05:25.0 +0700
+mpt0: QUEUE FULL EVENT: Bus 0x00 Target 0x05 Depth 122
+mpt0: QUEUE FULL EVENT: Bus 0x00 Target 0x05 Depth 122
+mpt0: QUEUE FULL EVENT: Bus 0x00 Target 0x0
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:33:48 +
"elman" wrote:
> Hai hacker,
>
> I have received the kernel log on freebsd 8.2
>
> kernel log messages:
> +++ /tmp/security.qHlmbCRv2011-08-23 03:05:25.0 +0700
> +mpt0: QUEUE FULL EVENT: Bus 0x00 Target 0x05 Depth 122
> +mpt0: QUEUE FULL EVENT: Bus 0x0
On Sunday 21 August 2011 06:13 am, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 02/08/2011 00:06 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> > On Monday 01 August 2011 04:10 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> on 01/08/2011 22:48 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> >>> I have mixed feeling about this because I own a system with
> >>> su
On 2011-Aug-22 12:45:08 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
>It would be suboptimal but only for the slight waste of space that would
>have otherwise been reclaimed if the block or fragment size remained 512
>or 2K. This waste of space is insignificant for the vast majority of
>users and there are no perf
9 matches
Mail list logo