On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:16:25PM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>Earlier I reported usb problems on this list. Since then I have recompiled
>the kernel and world three times, each time including the latest changes in
>src.
Just to humour me, can you try using a UP kernel and see if the problem
st
Just to provide a little information in case there is still confusion...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
> Quoting Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 2008-03-04, Chris H. wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
> > > reveals:
> > > lo0: flags
Earlier I reported usb problems on this list. Since then I have
recompiled the kernel and world three times, each time including the
latest changes in src.
# uname -a
FreeBSD hostname.utdallas.edu 7.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #3: Tue Mar
4 15:19:51 CST 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/
Quoting Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2008-03-04, Chris H. wrote:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid 0x3inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff
Hi All,
I create a new thread to discuss X11 freeze when moused enabled and
mouse stillness.
I am running 7-STATBEL/i386, March 2, 2008 (UTC) cvsup'd.
In my test,
i) moused enabled, use /dev/sysmouse in xorg.conf, X11 will freeze if
mouse not moving.
ii) moused disabled, use /dev/psm0 in xorg.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:23:15AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 05:18:02AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:05:22PM +, Chris wrote:
> >This doesn't come as much of a surprise. The binary actually references
> >libraries by names such as libXXX
Quoting "Chris H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Quoting Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Chris H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefi
Quoting Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Chris H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
reveals:
lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
scopeid 0x3inet 127.0.0.1
Hi,
the web mirror www.de.freebsd.org seems to be about 6 weeks out of date.
Does anybody know how to contact the server admin?
Wolfgang
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe,
Eric Anderson wrote:
> I'm starting to think there is a timing issue or some such problem with
> ZFS, since I can use the same drives in a gmirror with UFS, and never
> have any data problems (md5 checksums confirm it over-and-over). I
> highly doubt that everyone is seeing similar issues and i
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 07:04:29PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> It looks like there's an unexpected ATA interrupt. I can't think of
> any reason why either sound or netgraph would cause this - neither
> should be touching the hardware directly. Unless someone else has
> seen this before, tracking
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
Hello
One one of my stable machines I see these messages in /var/log/messages:
Mar 3 18:37:41 kg-i82 kernel: 16.011e9e3975b3aa06 too long
Mar 3 21:41:42 kg-i82 kernel: 16.016a24cf0742715c too long
Mar 3 21:41:58 kg-i82 kernel: 15.feb784aee196608c too short
Does anyone
Hello
One one of my stable machines I see these messages in /var/log/messages:
Mar 3 18:37:41 kg-i82 kernel: 16.011e9e3975b3aa06 too long
Mar 3 21:41:42 kg-i82 kernel: 16.016a24cf0742715c too long
Mar 3 21:41:58 kg-i82 kernel: 15.feb784aee196608c too short
Does anyone know hwat the messages mea
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 05:18:02AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:05:22PM +, Chris wrote:
>This doesn't come as much of a surprise. The binary actually references
>libraries by names such as libXXX.so, not libXXX.so.NUMBER.
This is incorrect. The binaries directly
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:00AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
> No. It's not a matter of "holding back". I really don't want to spam
> the stable list with ports litter. My main concern/question was in
> figuring out why 2 identical server configs would react so differently
> in the way they handle lo0
Hi,
I've got a new server with a 3ware 9550SXU with the
Battery. I am using FreeBSD 7.0-Release (tried both
4BSD and ULE) using AMD64 and the 3ware performance
for writes is just plain horrible. Something is
obviously wrong but I'm not sure what.
I've got a 4 disk RAID 10 array.
According to 3
On 2008-03-04, Chris H. wrote:
> Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
> reveals:
> lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
>inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
> scopeid 0x3inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
>
> as opposed to: 0x
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 07:25:35AM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote:
> I'm starting to think there is a timing issue or some such problem with
> ZFS, since I can use the same drives in a gmirror with UFS, and never have
> any data problems (md5 checksums confirm it over-and-over). I highly doubt
> th
Joe Peterson wrote:
Gavin Atkinson wrote:
Are the datestamps (Thu Jan 24 23:20:58 2008) found within the corrupt
block before or after the datestamp of the file it was found within?
i.e. was the corrupt block on the disk before or after the mp3 was
written there?
Hi Gavin, those dated are late
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:05:22PM +, Chris wrote:
> I have a freebsd 6.3 server and a freebsd 7.0 server, I have a binary
> I run of the freebsd 7 box but has recently been crashing, the binary
> in question is ezbounce.
>
> It was previously running for weeks no problems at all and then duri
> Hi Xin LI!
>
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:33 -0800; Xin LI wrote about 'Re: INET6 required fo
> r SCTP in 7.0?':
>
> >> I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now.
> >>
> >> When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the
> >> kernel without disabling SC
"Chris H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, adding an entry in /etc/rc.conf that provides 254 IP's now
> reveals:
> lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384
>inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64
> scopeid 0x3inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
>
> as opposed to:
I have a freebsd 6.3 server and a freebsd 7.0 server, I have a binary
I run of the freebsd 7 box but has recently been crashing, the binary
in question is ezbounce.
It was previously running for weeks no problems at all and then during
the past 2 weeks or so its had problems.
Like many shell prog
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:31AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
In long; Both servers have the same (and only) entry:
/etc/defaults/rc.conf: ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1"
no more, no less.
The RELENG_6 server reports:
lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384
inet
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:21AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
What I am having absolutely no understanding of; is why do
2 FBSD servers sharing the same setups, and the same stock
lo0 setups react /completely/ differently than each other,
when the only d
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:31AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
> In long; Both servers have the same (and only) entry:
> /etc/defaults/rc.conf: ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1"
> no more, no less.
> The RELENG_6 server reports:
> lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384
>inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00i
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:21AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
> What I am having absolutely no understanding of; is why do
> 2 FBSD servers sharing the same setups, and the same stock
> lo0 setups react /completely/ differently than each other,
> when the only difference is the version of FBSD, and the
Quoting Tom Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:03 -0800, Chris H. wrote:
Hello Mark. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
FWIW I'm hosting my own zone, out of my domain's address using a
different host name. I'm simply forwarding the requests to a different
port, so as to preve
Quoting Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:20AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
I have absolutely no idea why FBSD v7 (on 2 machines) will only
dole out 127.0.0.1, while all my other servers running RELENG_6 all
dole out a /minimum/ of 127.0.0.1/8 by default. But, having
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:03 -0800, Chris H. wrote:
> Hello Mark. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
> FWIW I'm hosting my own zone, out of my domain's address using a
> different host name. I'm simply forwarding the requests to a different
> port, so as to prevent port collision with the BIND. Th
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:46AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> If you then put another box on the network as 192.168.1.7, and give it a
> netmask of 255.255.255.128 (/25), it should not be able to see
> 192.168.1.200. Broadcast packets from 192.168.1.7 would be going to
> 192.168.1.128 (its "v
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:46AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> If you put a machine on that network as 192.168.1.200, and give it a
> netmask of 255.255.255.0, it will respond to any packets destined to
> 192.168.1.100 (obviously), but will also respond to packets destined to
> the broadcast ad
Quoting Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the "loopback"
past 127.0.0.1.
What evidence do you have for this? Show your ifconfig commands, etc.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:20AM -0800, Chris H. wrote:
> I have absolutely no idea why FBSD v7 (on 2 machines) will only
> dole out 127.0.0.1, while all my other servers running RELENG_6 all
> dole out a /minimum/ of 127.0.0.1/8 by default. But, having just now
> modified the default rc for ifco
Eric L. Chen wrote:
Hi Kris,
I have this problem, too.
If moused is enabled, use /dev/sysmouse in xorg.conf, X11 will freeze if
mouse not moving.
If moused is disabled, use /dev/psm0 in xorg.conf.
Every thing works fine.
I am running 7-STATBEL/i386.
OK, please start a new thread so we don't co
Chris H. wrote:
Greetings,
I'm having some difficulty working with anything past 127.0.0.1.
It seems impossible to use (create) any addresses on the "loopback"
past 127.0.0.1.
What evidence do you have for this? Show your ifconfig commands, etc.
I use 127/8 addresses all the time without prob
Hi Xin LI!
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:33 -0800; Xin LI wrote about 'Re: INET6 required for
SCTP in 7.0?':
>> I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now.
>>
>> When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the
>> kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-
Quoting Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Quoting Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Quoting Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Chris H. wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Are you sure it's a /24 you are talking about? My 7.0 disks install
>> >> > 127.0.0.1/8 here.
>> >>
>> >> R
38 matches
Mail list logo
