On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:20:49PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
>
> > The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that
> > ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld
> > (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's n
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:04:20 -0400
Charles Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> >> Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was
> >> I think
> >> was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS
> >> do you
> >> f
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:01:55 +0200
Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> >> I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines,
> >> it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different
> >> universes.
> >
> > Me too, but a lot has changed since
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 20:04:28 +0200
Marc Olzheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > >I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines,
> > >it was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different
> > >universes.
> >
> > M
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:42:45 -0400
Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:20 PM 08/06/2005, Matthias Buelow wrote:
>
> >I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it
> >was completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different
> >universes.
>
> Me too, but a lot has
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:00:38AM -0400, Robin P. Blanchard wrote:
>
> > just upgraded two systems to RELENG_5 this evening and NFS
> > client has collapsed. is this known issue? apologies -- i
> > realise i should really be tracking stable list.
> >
> > the error is
> >
> > [udp] 10.1
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:04:20PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote:
>
> However, it's common to find half-decent hardware RAID functionality
> on many x86 and AMD64 motherboards, and PCI-based RAID cards are not
> very expensive.
>
Of course, asr() isn't 64 bit safe, so that can throw a
On Thursday 09 June 2005 01:23, Grooms, Matthew wrote:
> Max,
>
> With your patch applied, I get a panic very quickly during the boot
> cycle with output that looks like this ...
My bad, missed the mtx_init() ...
| @@ -216,6 +219,9 @@
| callout_init(&sc->sc_tmo, 0);
| callout
Max,
With your patch applied, I get a panic very quickly during the boot cycle
with output that looks like this ...
net.inet.carp.preempt: 0 -> 1
Setting hostname: ---.
em: Link is up 100 Mbps Full Duplex
panic: mtx_lock() of spin mutex (null) @ ../../../net/if.c:1983
cpuid = 1
KDB: enter:
Matthew,
can you try the attached diff. Available for 5 and CURRENT. I recall that
this problem was seen before, strange that I didn't see the problem. Sounds
familiar to you? Please try the patch and let me know if that helps. Thanks
a lot.
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 01:35, Matthew Grooms
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/flushbuf.diff
> Does it work for you on 5.4?
The patch seems to work. Cool, that makes a difference like between
night and day. I can't determine any observable effect of untarring the
firefox source anymore to interactive response tim
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 02:15:54AM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
>
> >>Others don't see this though, and in other cases it was *definitively
> >>proven* to be caused by the issue I mentioned. I'll have to think
> >>more about what to try next..thanks for running the tests.
> >
> >Perhaps it's som
Within the space of about 10 minutes this article appeared here,
On Jun 8, 2005, at 5:48 PM, secmgr wrote:
Actually it's a very valid choice. At this time, Linux offers
ext3, XFS (from SGI), JFS (from IBM) and RieserFS as journaled file
systems (as in no fscking fsck). JFS, XFS and RieserFS
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Buelow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2005 8:26 PM
> If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate
> now. If it works, why change it?
> My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or
>
I wrote:
> after an unclean boot that would be a great boon. It would be nice if
> one can in the future chose between softupdates (for smaller
> filesystems) and journalling (for larger ones), or so.
OTOH, if journalling works really well and painless, like on Linux with
the ext2->ext3 migration
secmgr wrote:
> hanging all IO's to the partition. Scale that upto 1.8TB, and I could
> see where you could be going nowhere for a good 10 minutes just waiting
> for the snap to finish. Still better than waiting hours for fsck, but
> nowhere near the recovery speed of a true journaled system.
S
Kris Kennaway (kris at obsecurity.org) writes:
> Are you sure you didn't change your kernel config or forget to rebuild
> modules?
No changes to the kernel config, and I did the usual sequence of make
buildworld ; make buildkernel; make installkernel; reboot to single-user
mode; make installwor
Dmitriy Kirhlarov wrote:
Hi Pierre!
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005, Pierre DAVID wrote:
Do you have a clue to help us use FreeBSD and not switch on Linux
for this service?
Bad workaround.
You can create many small partitions and mount_unionfs.
Actually it's a very valid choice. At this ti
Are these available for download somewhere? I am getting rejected chunks
and I suspect it may be the mail client I am using. This does apply
cleanly to 5.4-RELEASE correct?
Matthew Grooms
Network Engineer
Seton Healthcare Network
http://www.seton.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(512) 324 9913
Max Laier
BTW : Had you tested pfsync between two SMP systems with decent traffic
flow? It usually took about 3 days to hit the LOR but the panic shows up
in about 10-20 minutes.
Matthew Grooms
Network Engineer
Seton Healthcare Network
http://www.seton.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(512) 324 9913
Max Laier wro
On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
A few problems I've had include:
rdist works on 5.3 source host, but not from 5.4+amd64
(yes, I'm sure someone's out there will work, but
Mine doesn't (user & su) & does with 5.3, which iis
all that maters to me :-)
Charles Swiger wrote:
> Yanking a mounted device out from under Unix has always been a no- no.
> It would be nice if FreeBSD handled this better, but this problem falls
> into the "operator error: don't do that" category.
I'm aware that some things have different priority but it is imho
inaccep
> "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy
> a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?
My experience: go 5.3 or 4.11, but avoid 5.4. Here's why: I've
downgraded my main amd64 tower & 386 laptop from 5.4 to 5.3. I've
also abandoned amd64 f
Hello,
My name is George Wieland. I'm representative of Raising Finance
Company. I'd like to provide you with an interesting business offer.
Raising Finance is a High Yield Investment Program officially
incorporated in Belize. We offer you an interest of 3% daily for 50
days +
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-06-06 10:25:51 -0300:
> several linux distros have achieved a difficult goal: ease of
> installation-use combined with a stable system. (...) I think that
> there are a lot of linux distros out there that are really easy to
> use, and even more "friendly" or "beatiful" th
pgsql# uptime
9:35PM up 235 days, 11:12, 1 user, load averages: 1.40, 1.17, 1.11
pgsql# uname -v
FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE #0: Wed Jul 28 18:02:39 CEST 2004 [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/PGSQL
I gues uptime would be even greater if I didn't have power failure and UPS
was empty.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:01:55PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> >> I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was
> >> completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes.
> >
> > Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the
On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Matthias Buelow wrote:
Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I
think
was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of the OS do
you
feel are not production ready as compared to 4.X ?
I won't go into the details here; it has crash
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was
> >completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes.
>
> Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was
> called a pre
Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was
>> completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes.
>
> Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think
> was called a preview. The topic is 5.4R. What parts of t
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was
>>completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes.
>
> Right, it was a developer preview release that was not intended for
> production use.
I know, I have not claimed otherwise.
mkb.
_
At 12:20 PM 08/06/2005, Matthias Buelow wrote:
I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was
completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes.
Me too, but a lot has changed since 5.2.1 which at the time was I think was
called a preview. The topic is 5.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:20:49PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
>
> > The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that
> > ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld
> > (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's n
> I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on several machines, it was
> completely unusable. Maybe we just live in different universes.
>
> mkb.
I also run FreeBSD 5.4 in production with no problems. I've only rarely
had problems after cvsup since the 2.2.7 days, and were always caught in
test.
- Original Message -
From: "Matthias Buelow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Freddie Cash wrote:
The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that
ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld
(hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an
Freddie Cash wrote:
> The only problem we've had with FreeBSD 5 is one system running 5.2.1 that
> ran for over a year just fine, but would not complete a buildworld
> (hardware has died and it has been retired, so it's not an issue any
> more).
I remember 5.2.1 panicking left and right, on se
"Palle Girgensohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
--On tisdag, juni 07, 2005 22.08.42 +0100 Gray Lilley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did I read somewhere that you need PAE enabled for over 4GB of ram? I
> could be horribly wrong, but my 0.02p worth :)
Either th
On June 8, 2005 03:26 am, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> David Hogan wrote:
> > In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a
> > serious kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a
> > preinstalled driver or a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this
> > holds true for Free
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:52:39PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
>
> Would you please provide a bit more of information so we can investigate
> what was happening, like:
>
> - first few lines dumpfs(8) output from your storage filesystem
> - df -i on your storag filesystem
> - dmesg.boot
Hi Pierre!
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005, Pierre DAVID wrote:
> Do you have a clue to help us use FreeBSD and not switch on Linux
> for this service?
Bad workaround.
You can create many small partitions and mount_unionfs.
By.
Dmitriy
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.
* Michael W. Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [0603 15:03]:
> Hi,
>
> I'm building a nanobsd image on i386 5.4-stable for a Soekris net4801.
> My kernel includes
>
> options CONSPEED=19200
>
> so that the serial console "just works". (Soekris hardware defaults
> to 19200; having the BIOS at 1920
I use:
BOOT_COMCONSOLE_SPEED= 115200
In my make.conf and that does the trick for me.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Michael W. Lucas
> Sent: 08 June 2005 15:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: CONSPEED=19200 broken/changed
Matthew,
can you try the attached diff. Available for 5 and CURRENT. I recall that
this problem was seen before, strange that I didn't see the problem. Sounds
familiar to you? Please try the patch and let me know if that helps. Thanks
a lot.
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 01:35, Matthew Grooms
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:13 PM, David Hogan wrote:
using 5.4 arent having any problems .. it's just my general
impression that
"something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were
to deploy
a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?
5.4 without question.
Hi,
I'm building a nanobsd image on i386 5.4-stable for a Soekris net4801.
My kernel includes
options CONSPEED=19200
so that the serial console "just works". (Soekris hardware defaults
to 19200; having the BIOS at 19200 and the OS at 9600 is just
annoying.)
When I boot, however, the co
Peter Jeremy wrote:
...
IMHO, just reading this mailing list will give you an overly negative
view of FreeBSD's stability. My experiences are that FreeBSD 5.4
using a GENERIC kernel (or something close to it) is quite stable.
Second that. Based on the observable chatter around 5.x problem
ar
pflog0: promiscuous mode enabled
Do you want to be running this way?
Matt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:01 AM
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: freebsd-st
> just upgraded two systems to RELENG_5 this evening and NFS
> client has collapsed. is this known issue? apologies -- i
> realise i should really be tracking stable list.
>
> the error is
>
> [udp] 10.12.12.66:/usr/cabinet: RPCPROG_NFS: RPC: Port
> mapper failure -
> RPC: Unable to re
Hi, Pierre,
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 02:31:37PM +0200, Pierre DAVID wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are setting up a mail server for ~50 000 users, with around 1.8TB
> on a DAS storage (HP MSA 500).
>
> We were planning to use FreeBSD (5.4-RELEASE), as with all other
> servers in our machine room.
>
> Howev
Hi,
we are setting up a mail server for ~50 000 users, with around 1.8TB
on a DAS storage (HP MSA 500).
We were planning to use FreeBSD (5.4-RELEASE), as with all other
servers in our machine room.
However, we are encountering a show stopper: after an unclean
shutdown, the snapshot that fsck cre
Palle Girgensohn wrote:
Mine, and most others with this problem, have Dell 2850. Same ethernet
controller, though, `em'...?
The server mentioned here is a custom box (Board is from EPOX).
One of the two active ethernet controllers is an
Intel® PRO/1000 MT Server Adapter using (em).
[
Matthias Buelow wrote:
If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be careless to migrate
now. If it works, why change it?
My experience with the 5.x tree so far is that it's ok for a SOHO or
private environment but I wouldn't trust it if my money (or job)
depended on it. Maybe in a year, or
Mine, and most others with this problem, have Dell 2850. Same ethernet
controller, though, `em'...?
/Palle
--On onsdag, juni 08, 2005 11.27.01 +0200 Kay Abendroth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Output of 'dmesg':
Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986
David Hogan wrote:
> In my time with the Trustix lists, I don't think I came across a serious
> kernel issue that wasn't caused by either a lack of a preinstalled driver or
> a bad stick of ram. Would you say that this holds true for FreeBSD? I
If that Trustix works for you now well, you'd be car
On Tue, 2005-May-31 16:47:19 -0700, Steve Watt wrote:
>>> The vnode locks are held by processes:
>>> PID namewaiting on
>>> 487 perl [ufs c3c1c1b4]
>>> 57 syncer [snaplk c535f500] (holds 2 locks)
>>> 476 perl [ufs c87e4f1c]
>>> 489 perl [snaplk c535f500]
Output of 'dmesg':
Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #0: Fri Jun 3 08:49:22 UTC 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr
On Wed, 2005-Jun-08 10:13:16 +1000, David Hogan wrote:
>Recently though, I've been playing around with FreeBSD 5.4 on a vmware box,
>and I'm beginning to think it may be the way forward in the long run. Having
>observed freebsd-stable@freebsd.org for the last couple of weeks, I've
>noticed a worryi
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:16AM +1000, David Hogan wrote:
> [...]
> .. it's just my general impression that
> "something's up" with the stability of the 5.4 release. If I were to deploy
> a server right now, would a seasoned FreeBSD user use 4.11 or 5.4?
I'd say go for 5.4.
5.4 runs rock stable
58 matches
Mail list logo
