Hi guys,
I've upgraded some machines to 9.0-REL and I'm seeing the following a
few minutes after stopping or restarting a jail with vnet:
http://i.imgur.com/cRsLr.jpg
Sometimes it doesn't happen and as the machine is remote it means I only
have ipkvm output posted above to go on, I'm also us
Yes, what you are trying to do is allowed and is supported. In fact several
bugs
were fixed to support such configuration properly. For example, see these
commits:
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=225947
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision
>> On 2/16/12 8:08 AM, M. V. wrote:
>>> hi everybody,
>>>
>>> i have a problem with setting multiple IPs in the same network in FreeBSD:
>>>
>>> - suppose I assign two new IP addresses in the same network to eth0 with
>>> ifconfig:
>>> #ifconfig eth0 add 192.168.10.1/24
>>> #ifconfig eth0 add 1
Giulio Ferro wrote:
> Thanks everybody again for your help with setting up a working
> kerberized nfsv4 system.
>
> I was able to user-mount a nfsv4 share with krb5 security, and I was
> trying to do the same as root.
>
> Unfortunately the patch I found here:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem
Giulio Ferro wrote:
> Thanks everybody again for your help with setting up a working
> kerberized nfsv4 system.
>
> I was able to user-mount a nfsv4 share with krb5 security, and I was
> trying to do the same as root.
>
> Unfortunately the patch I found here:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem
Old Synopsis: IGB freezes after about 2 weeks of uptime
New Synopsis: [igb] igb freezes after about 2 weeks of uptime
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Feb 17 18:31:59 UTC 2012
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to main
On 2/17/12 5:53 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:16:22PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
M> Thoughts, feedback and suggestion are welcome,
Is it possible to make the structure the driver points to opaque?
Once made, that would allow us to hack on the ifnet (or on its
success
On 17 February 2012 09:18, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I definitely agree that it is a good investment, especially considering that
> I am doing this all the times when i port FreeBSD stuff to linux...
>
> The linux version of netmap, which i just completed, was mostly
> done playing tricks to remap str
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:52:31AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>
> >> Thoughts, feedback and suggestion are welcome,
> >
> > I do like the idea, but the amount of changes will be massive
> > (see below). The thing that worries me the mos
Thanks everybody again for your help with setting up a working
kerberized nfsv4 system.
I was able to user-mount a nfsv4 share with krb5 security, and I was
trying to do the same as root.
Unfortunately the patch I found here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/rpcsec_gss.patch
fails to apply c
On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts, feedback and suggestion are welcome,
>
> I do like the idea, but the amount of changes will be massive
> (see below). The thing that worries me the most is that it
> will introduce huge changes between different releases, unless
>
Hello,
This is more of a question about how to provide you with more
information than a proper bug-report. What we've found is that with
FreeBSD 9.0, when we bring up both ports of a 10GbaseT Intel x520-t2
adapter, and we start pushing data through them with (for example)
iperf, processes sta
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> M> Thoughts, feedback and suggestion are welcome,
>
> Is it possible to make the structure the driver points to opaque?
>
> Once made, that would allow us to hack on the ifnet (or on its
> successor - iflogical) more aggressively without breaki
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:16:22PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
M> All,
M>
M> Juniper is in the final phases of creating a clean separation
M> between FreeBSD and Junos, so as to make upgrades of FreeBSD
M> easier. This also allows Juniper to track -current and be more
M> active FreeBSD contribu
Hi,
So ray@ pointed out that fragment handling in net80211 is broken. Yes,
802.11 fragments, not IP fragments. This is specific to ath, but any
driver using IFQ_ENQUEUE/IFQ_DEQUEUE is likely broken.
The 30 second summary goes something like this:
* frame ends up at ieee80211_start()
* .. this en
On 17 February 2012 00:23, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I do like the idea, but the amount of changes will be massive
> (see below). The thing that worries me the most is that it
> will introduce huge changes between different releases, unless
> we backport the accessors (while keeping the underlying str
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:16:22PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> All,
>
> Juniper is in the final phases of creating a clean separation
> between FreeBSD and Junos, so as to make upgrades of FreeBSD
> easier. This also allows Juniper to track -current and be more
> active FreeBSD contributors.
17 matches
Mail list logo
