Hi,
Has anyone seen these errors before:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135836&cat=
The system is a Dell R610 and it happens on both cold and warm boots.
I am about to check a second chassis, and test with 8, and will follow
up after my tests.
Tom
_
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Vlad Galu wrote:
> Hi list, sorry for the noise here.
>
> I'm experiencing a weird issue with the latest Quagga from ports, on a
> 8.0-RC1. It was configured to redistribute kernel routes to BGP, which
> it does. However, when a route is deleted, it's still announ
At 02:44 PM 10/27/2009, Vlad Galu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Vlad Galu wrote:
> Hi list, sorry for the noise here.
>
> I'm experiencing a weird issue with the latest Quagga from ports, on a
> 8.0-RC1. It was configured to redistribute kernel routes to BGP, which
> it does. However,
ZFS makes its own version of the exports file.
Just do it that way, and be safe.
You can pass the full set of NFS options in the sharenfs parameter
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683E-Mail: l...@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 V
Tom Judge wrote:
Hi,
Has anyone seen these errors before:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135836&cat=
The system is a Dell R610 and it happens on both cold and warm boots.
I am about to check a second chassis, and test with 8, and will follow
up after my tests.
Here are my tes
M610 is also broken due to unsupported bge revision :(
Regards
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Judge"
To:
Cc: ; "Xin LI" ; "David Christensen" ; ;
"Stanislav Sedov"
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: bce(4) BCM5907 CTX write errors on 7.2 driver
Tom
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 02:44 PM 10/27/2009, Vlad Galu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Vlad Galu wrote:
>> > Hi list, sorry for the noise here.
>> >
>> > I'm experiencing a weird issue with the latest Quagga from ports, on a
>> > 8.0-RC1. It was con
Steven Hartland wrote:
M610 is also broken due to unsupported bge revision :(
Hi Steve,
This seems to be a missing PHY driver for bce(4)+SerDes rather than a
bge issue, see PR:kern/134658
You already refrenced this in a thread on current@ releated to an HP system.
I have added this info
The following reply was made to PR kern/139761; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Tom Judge
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, sebastian.tym...@gmail.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/139761: [bce] bce driver on IBM HS22 [No PHY found on Child
MII bus]
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:25:30 +
Hi,
This se
hello,
"Larry Rosenman" writes:
> ZFS makes its own version of the exports file.
>
> Just do it that way, and be safe.
>
> You can pass the full set of NFS options in the sharenfs parameter
ah ok, I see. Thanks for answering.
I got fooled by the man zfs(1M) example :
zfs set sharenfs='r
The following reply was made to PR kern/135836; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Tom Judge
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, rwilli...@borderware.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/135836: [bce] bce BCM5709 Watchdog after warm boot - ok
after cold boot
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:30:51 +
Hi,
This s
The following reply was made to PR kern/134658; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Tom Judge
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, harald_jen...@dell.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/134658: [bce] bce driver fails on PowerEdge m610 blade.
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:32:24 +
Hi,
This seems to be a duplic
Hi,
I went looking though all the PRs related to bce(4) this afternoon
trying to shed some light on my R610 issue and came across the following
duplicates:
No SerDes PHY Support: kern/139761 kern/136417 kern/134658 - and
possibly kern/118238 however this is different controller.
CTX Write
The following reply was made to PR kern/107850; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Tom Judge
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, ol...@ipunplugged.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/107850: [bce] bce driver link negotiation is faulty
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:51:05 +
This bug should not be present in mod
The following reply was made to PR kern/108542; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Tom Judge
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, r...@unix-asp.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/108542: [bce] Huge network latencies with 6.2-RELEASE /
STABLE
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:53:41 +
This should not be a problem
> Has anyone seen these errors before:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135836&cat=
>
> The system is a Dell R610 and it happens on both cold and warm boots.
>
> I am about to check a second chassis, and test with 8, and
> will follow up after my tests.
Yes, I've seen these error
David Christensen wrote:
Has anyone seen these errors before:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135836&cat=
The system is a Dell R610 and it happens on both cold and warm boots.
I am about to check a second chassis, and test with 8, and
will follow up after my tests.
Yes, I've
> Thanks for the rapid response.
>
> Dell have firmware 5.0.9 on their website here: http://tiny.cc/ex834
>
> Will that work?
Yes, that release does include a good version of BCM5709 bootcode (v5.06).
I couldn't really tell until I downloaded the file and looked at the
temporary files inside.
I cc'ed those who seem to have put the most/recent effort into
sys/dev/wpi.
Is there any objection to turning off WPI_DEBUG by default? it creates
a lot of spam that the average user doesn't need. I use my 3945abg
every day and haven't had any problems with it for ages so I think
it's safe to say
Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs.
natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd
uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach
would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw approach permits a hostn
My understanding is that I can bind multiple machines running netgraph into
one large netgraph, by using something like ng_ksocket nodes bound with a
tunneling device.
By doing this, is the restriction of one ng_ipfw node per netgraph global to
all of the machines (one, and only one, ng_ipfw node)
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:30:38 -
"Steven Hartland" mentioned:
> M610 is also broken due to unsupported bge revision :(
>
What bge revision do you have? I recently committed support
for new bge(4) chip revisions to HEAD, can you check, please,
if HEAD recognize this adapter correctly? You ca
First sorry for the top post, the blackberry won't allow me to bottom post or I
can't find the option.
I will try this update when I get to the office in the morning. Hopefully it
will resolve the issue.
Thanks
Tom
--Original Message--
From: David Christensen
To: Tom Judge
Cc: n...@fre
Sorry I typo'ed there, should have said bce, is that still relevant?.
We haven't been able to install any version yet, so can't just
try a kernel, no way of getting data on to the machine without
a working netcard ;-)
Did this update include any updated PHY support for bce? As the
the precise er
remodeler wrote:
> Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs.
> natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd
> uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach
> would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:02:09 -
"Steven Hartland" mentioned:
> Sorry I typo'ed there, should have said bce, is that still relevant?.
>
> We haven't been able to install any version yet, so can't just
> try a kernel, no way of getting data on to the machine without
> a working netcard ;-)
>
>
On 28/10/09 08:59, Doug Barton wrote:
I cc'ed those who seem to have put the most/recent effort into
sys/dev/wpi.
Is there any objection to turning off WPI_DEBUG by default? it creates
a lot of spam that the average user doesn't need. I use my 3945abg
every day and haven't had any problems with
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:02:09 -
"Steven Hartland" mentioned:
If I understand the PR comments right, the code to support this PHY
should be present in 8.0. So you can start by trying out 8.0-RC1
ISO image (or USB stick image, fwiw).
Just tried 8.0RC2 no go, PHY still not supported :(
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:29:11PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> I cc'ed those who seem to have put the most/recent effort into
> sys/dev/wpi.
>
> Is there any objection to turning off WPI_DEBUG by default? it creates
> a lot of spam that the average user doesn't need. I use my 3945abg
> every day a
remodeler wrote:
Is there any reason to prefer port-forwarding with ipfw (forward ipaddr) vs.
natd (-redirect_port), if I am using both subsystems in any case? I see natd
uses libalias and an ipfw divert port, so my thought is that the ipfw approach
would incur less overhead. Also, the ipfw appro
remodeler wrote:
My understanding is that I can bind multiple machines running netgraph into
one large netgraph, by using something like ng_ksocket nodes bound with a
tunneling device.
you COULD do that, yes, but the two netgraphs are unaware of each other.
By doing this, is the restriction
Arno J. Klaassen wrote:
hello,
"Larry Rosenman" writes:
ZFS makes its own version of the exports file.
Just do it that way, and be safe.
You can pass the full set of NFS options in the sharenfs parameter
ah ok, I see. Thanks for answering.
I got fooled by the man zfs(1M) example :
> Using natd (or ipfw nat) has the ability to manipulate the IP address
> and ports of a packet. The fwd capability in ipfw does not modify the
> layer 3 headers, but instead short-circuits the next-hop logic. Take a
> look at the fwd description in ipfw(8).
>
> I would recommend using the ipfw bu
Steven Hartland wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:02:09 -
"Steven Hartland" mentioned:
If I understand the PR comments right, the code to support this PHY
should be present in 8.0. So you can start by trying out 8.0-RC1
ISO image (or USB stick image, fwiw).
Just tried 8.0RC2 no go, PHY sti
34 matches
Mail list logo
