Konstantin Belousov wrote:
IMHO, core dumps are much harder to deal with in your situation.
I prefer the way of gathering data I described before.
OK, ill try to setup a serial console tomorrow then, ill have to borrow
the cable from another system.
__
On 06/06/06 15:39, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
Hello,
I need to know which files under /var a proccess (httpd here) is
acessing. It is not logs because I have a different partition for
logs.
gstat tells me that slice ad0s1h (my /var) is 100% frequently, and in
fact with fstat I can see a number of htt
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:34:39PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Since i don't have a serial console available and I'm not that
> knowledgeable with debuggers, would providing a fast download link to a
> core dump (I'm sure the dump would compress very well) be useful to
> anyone? Would someone b
Unfortunately, I won't be able to test the newer curses
anytime soon...
But - I did report some years ago that c3270 doesn't build
with the current ncurses because of a name clash. If someone
gets a chance, it might be a good idea to test that port
with the newer ncurses.
- Thanks -
Hi,
[I'm also CC'ed peter@ since he is the maintainer of ncurses in base]
As you may know, the current ncurses in the base system is rather old
(it is 4 years old). I have been working on updating ncurses to the latest
version 5.5 and enable wide character as default. I have put the description,
Protect Your Account Info
Mak e sure you never provide your password to fraudulent websites.
PayPal will never ask you to enter your password in an email.
For more information on protecting yourself from fraud, please review
our Security Tips at http
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
The hangs are mostly related to snapshots. It would be better to
update to the latest RELENG_6.
Hangs on RELENG_6_1 is not so much interesting. For
hanged RELENG_6 system, please do what described below and post
the log of the ddb session.
I'm not sure whether kbdmux
Andy Dills wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
Doug White wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Andy Dills wrote:
I'm trying to get a Supermicro 6024H-32R setup with 6.1, but I'm
discovering that the Adaptec SAS AIC9410 controller isn't yet supported.
I see one brief thread about it on thi
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> Doug White wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Andy Dills wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm trying to get a Supermicro 6024H-32R setup with 6.1, but I'm
> > > discovering that the Adaptec SAS AIC9410 controller isn't yet supported.
> > >
> > > I see one brief thread
Doug White wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Andy Dills wrote:
I'm trying to get a Supermicro 6024H-32R setup with 6.1, but I'm
discovering that the Adaptec SAS AIC9410 controller isn't yet supported.
I see one brief thread about it on this mailing list back in March,
but no
further mention or con
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Andy Dills wrote:
I'm trying to get a Supermicro 6024H-32R setup with 6.1, but I'm
discovering that the Adaptec SAS AIC9410 controller isn't yet supported.
I see one brief thread about it on this mailing list back in March, but no
further mention or conclusive details. Ther
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, srwadleigh wrote:
I have 6.1-RELEASE installed on a Supermicro SuperServer 6014P-TR
with Supermicro motherboard: Super X6DHP-TG
http://supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7520/X6DHP-TG.cfm
I have four SATA drives attached to the internal backplane which uses
the f
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Pete French wrote:
If just non-ACPI isnt sufficient, the other thing SAFE does is turn
off disk DMA. I have an as-yet unreleased system that has this
same type of issue, and the problem is that two PCI device ID's
are not recognized, so maybe that will be your problem.
So,
п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 08:20, Alexander Leidinger написав:
> This sounds like the /famous/ "this software isn't branded correctly"
> bug. Please check that every binary executable, specially every static
> one, is branded with brandelf to "Linux".
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check the binar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mikhail Teterin
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: System reset trying to configure Sybase server
(databases/sybase_ase)
Hello!
I in
Quoting Mikhail Teterin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 8 Jun
2006 23:20:35 -0400):
It does not try to make a kernel dump (dumpdev configured), it does not log
anything in the last second (log messages sent to another system). Just a
very quick system reset... And I saw it happen 4 times alread
* On 09/06/06 09:33 +0200, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
| On 6/8/06, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >That shouldn't be an issue anymore, but I don't know when that was
| >resolved.
|
| Does anyone take care of what Daniel and Greg have said or read
| doc/faq about PF?
The archives doe
Just in case anyone is wondering about the same answers, I decided to check
it out tonight.
When a packet is a state mismatch, doesn't it simply get discarded (assuming
block policy is "drop")?
It appears that pf sends a RST when a state-mismatch happens during the
initial handshake:
I think it is also worth mentioning that the connections failed (at least
for me) immediately. There does not appear to be any timeouts. Initially,
this is what lead me to believe it was NOT pf because my block policy was
drop, not reject. When a packet is a state mismatch, doesn't it simply ge
On 6/8/06, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That shouldn't be an issue anymore, but I don't know when that was resolved.
Does anyone take care of what Daniel and Greg have said or read
doc/faq about PF?
--
Massimo
http://meridio.blogspot.com
__
Le 09/06/2006 à 09:26:20+0200, Massimo Lusetti a écrit
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> > No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch
> > for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not
> > to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machi
Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch
> > for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not
> > to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machine,
> > therefore my recommendation is RELENG_
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch
> for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not
> to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machine,
> therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1.
If read right he
Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS-
> > related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release. Therefore
> > I recommend that you update to RELENG_6_1.
>
> Did you mean RELENG_6, right?
No, I meant RELENG_6
24 matches
Mail list logo
