bOn Tue, 2006-02-21 at 22:59 -0800, Peter Losher wrote:
> What's the proper method these days for defining a static naming scheme
> for direct access devices (da*)?
/boot/device.hints
hint.scbus.0.at="ahc0"
hint.da.0.at="scbus0"
hint.da.0.target="0"
hint.da.1.at="scbus0"
hint.da.1.target="1"
hin
Hello again
I have another issue on the same box. The bloke who installed FreeBSD 6.0onto
the machine is a linux man. He didn't know about softupdates nor apparently
does
he know yet about option 4 [read only singule user mode] on the bootloader.
Consequently he hasn't set softupdates on the ma
Hi -
What's the proper method these days for defining a static naming scheme
for direct access devices (da*)?
In this case, I have two systems (one 5.1 and one 6.0) connected to a
read-only RAID appliance (via FibreChannel) while having two SCSI disks
onboard for the OS and applications. With th
Balgansuren Batsukh wrote:
Hello,
We installed FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE and cvsuped to STABLE.
We configured machine as IPFW+NAT and installed SQUID+SQUIDGUARD+DANSGUARDIAN.
It works well under light load, but on heavy load suddenly no response whole
machine.
We guess FreeBSD-6.0 doesn't support
On 2/21/06, Balgansuren Batsukh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We installed FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE and cvsuped to STABLE.
>
> We configured machine as IPFW+NAT and installed SQUID+SQUIDGUARD+DANSGUARDIAN.
>
> It works well under light load, but on heavy load suddenly no response whole
> mach
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 14:47, Sam Leffler wrote:
> > I've got a ton of changes coming in from HEAD soon (don't recall what
> > the mfc date is). These include a fix to deal with a race whereby tx
> > descriptors could be "lost" under heavy load. This could explain the
> > slowdown in operati
> > Now, how can I check whether my current partitions will cause trouble
> > with the metadata-sector or not? I've done some searching on the net,
> > but I'm still a bit confused. If I understand correctly, the consumers
> > ad0/ad2 span 488397168 sectors (mediasize/sectorsize), and the
> > mirro
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:59:59 +0300
Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:49:12 +0300
> > Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:20:29AM +0200, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
Hello,
We installed FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE and cvsuped to STABLE.
We configured machine as IPFW+NAT and installed SQUID+SQUIDGUARD+DANSGUARDIAN.
It works well under light load, but on heavy load suddenly no response whole
machine.
We guess FreeBSD-6.0 doesn't support ServeRaid-7k/7t on IBM eSerie
Hello List,
I encounter some strange problems with accessing my
Epson Perfection 1260 Scanner (Plustek):
sane-find-scanner from non-root-user that belongs to
group usb finds the scanner every time (so far):
# No SCSI scanners found.
found USB scanner (vendor=0x04b8, product=0x011d) at /d
Jeff has been too busy to send this patch himself, but it fixed the
quota deadlock that I was able to provoke on my machine. Does it also
solve the issue for others?
Kris
- Forwarded message from Jeff Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL P
On 2/21/06, Andrew Hacking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to setp a jail in RELENG_6, and cannot apply the jail
> ruleset (ruleset 4) to the jail devfs mount point. The system also
> hangs if I try to apply the rules individually.
>
> I raised PR/93423 for this issue. See
> http://www.fr
Jason Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While trying to get CD burning working under FreeBSD 6.0 (and
> 6.1-PreRelease), I keep getting the following error in my dmesg and cd1
> is never created. The drive is a Philips CDRW4012P. It shows up
> as /dev/acd1 and reports correctly in dmesg. However,
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 14:08, Sam Leffler wrote:
> I've got a ton of changes coming in from HEAD soon (don't recall what
> the mfc date is). These include a fix to deal with a race whereby tx
> descriptors could be "lost" under heavy load. This could explain the
> slowdown in operation but n
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 13:28, Martin wrote:
> I've got a different effect here.
> The performance slowly decreases to zero with 11g.
this BTW seems to be a side-effect of 11g
11G when running above 11MBps is extremly sensitiv to antena and coax gear so
even it it seems to be the same you m
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 12:50:19PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> --->>>
> w -mno-sse -mno-sse2 -ffreestanding -Werror ata_if.c
> cc -c -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -march=pentium3 -Wall -Wredundant-decls
> -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpo
Sam Leffler wrote:
Martin wrote:
JoaoBR wrote:
no problem at all, I get full througput in any mode as long as the
device is working, it is not a performance issue, it stops rx/tx
I've got a different effect here.
The performance slowly decreases to zero with 11g.
hum, what dhcp should have
Martin wrote:
JoaoBR wrote:
no problem at all, I get full througput in any mode as long as the device is
working, it is not a performance issue, it stops rx/tx
I've got a different effect here.
The performance slowly decreases to zero with 11g.
hum, what dhcp should have to do if the radio
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 10:57:01PM +0200, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:49:12 +0300
> Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:20:29AM +0200, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:35:18 +0100
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Sm??rg
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:02:23 -0300
"Giovanni P. Tirloni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've moved hard disks around many times and this has never happened.
This is a first for me also. :-)
> Can you send us `fdisk /dev/ad0` from 4.11 and 6.0 so we can spot
> anything not normal ?
Hard to do,
JoaoBR wrote:
> no problem at all, I get full througput in any mode as long as the device is
> working, it is not a performance issue, it stops rx/tx
I've got a different effect here.
The performance slowly decreases to zero with 11g.
> hum, what dhcp should have to do if the radio works or not
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 12:36, Martin wrote:
>
> RELENG_6 is the whole branch. What date has your kernel been built?
>
6.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.1-PRERELEASE #2: Sun Feb 19 12:45:27 BRT 2006
sources are same date
> I experience this when using 11g mode with hostap. The maximal
> performance I
JoaoBR wrote:
> Hi
> configuring an atheros card for hostap in releng_6 seems to be unusable at
> all
> at this time.
RELENG_6 is the whole branch. What date has your kernel been built?
> The card is running fine and can be configured as wished but after some time
> it stops working
I experie
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:07:02AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > the utility time -- time command execution doesn't work as expected:
> >
> > time -h ls
>
> time is built into some shells. You need to get the right
> version of time.
>
> Use a backslash to
Mathieu Prevot wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:38:58PM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
>> Many shells have a builtin named time. Use 'which time' to verify this.
>
> Thank you both & sorry.
>
> Is there a simple way to force using /usr/bin/time instead of builtin time
> when I use just time ?
> Hello,
>
> the utility time -- time command execution doesn't work as expected:
>
> time -h ls
time is built into some shells. You need to get the right
version of time.
Use a backslash to tell the shell not to use it's builtin version
or specify the full pa
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:38:58PM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * Mathieu Prevot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-21 13:19 +0100]:
> > the utility time -- time command execution doesn't work as expected:
> >
> > time -h ls
> >
> > give:
> >
> > -h: Command not found.
>
> Many shells have a bui
Mathieu Prevot wrote:
the utility time -- time command execution doesn't work as expected:
time -h ls
give:
-h: Command not found.
You're using the "time" that's built into your shell:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<~> $/usr/bin/time -h uname
FreeBSD
0.00s real 0.00s user
Hello,
the utility time -- time command execution doesn't work as expected:
time -h ls
give:
-h: Command not found.
0.000u 0.000s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
I have:
6.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.1-PRERELEASE #29: Sat Feb 18 02:31:01 CET 2006 amd64
--
MP
__
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:58:30AM +0100, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've just configured a server to use gmirror (using FreeBSD 6.1b2). I
> followed the tutorial on
> http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2005/11/10/FreeBSD_Basics.html and did
> it install-time.
> Then I read in the gmirror(8)
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:10:31PM +1000, Andrew Hacking wrote:
> I am trying to setp a jail in RELENG_6, and cannot apply the jail
> ruleset (ruleset 4) to the jail devfs mount point. The system also
> hangs if I try to apply the rules individually.
>
> I raised PR/93423 for this issue. See
> ht
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
Hi,
Yes, this is a strange question; is the slice numbering in FreeBSD 4.x
different from that in FreeBSD 6.x?
I'm talking about for fdisk(8), boot(8) and loader(8).
Background: I have this old laptop (a HP OmniBook 5500CT). I replaced
the tiny (1.2GB) hard drive in it w
Hi
configuring an atheros card for hostap in releng_6 seems to be unusable at all
at this time.
The card is running fine and can be configured as wished but after some time
it stops working
ifconfig ath0 list stat do not show the client anymore
sometimes I see ath0 device timeout in messages
u
I am trying to setp a jail in RELENG_6, and cannot apply the jail
ruleset (ruleset 4) to the jail devfs mount point. The system also
hangs if I try to apply the rules individually.
I raised PR/93423 for this issue. See
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=93423 for details
I am wondering i
Hello.
I've just configured a server to use gmirror (using FreeBSD 6.1b2). I
followed the tutorial on
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2005/11/10/FreeBSD_Basics.html and did
it install-time.
Then I read in the gmirror(8) man-page that gmirror uses the last sector
of the provider to store metad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hej there,
Atanas wrote:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav said the following on 02/15/06 23:35:
>
>> David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Last year I already had to decrease the LoginGraceTime from 120 to 30
> seconds on my production boxes, but it didn'
36 matches
Mail list logo
