On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:37:00 pm Doug Rabson wrote:
> On 8 May 2008, at 09:12, Paul Koch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have been trying to track down a problem with one of our apps
> > which does a lot of flock(2) calls. flock returns errno 11
> > (Resource deadlock avoided) under certain scenarios. Ou
What are the hoped for release dates for 7.1? (plus or minus a month)
I'm debating on running 7.0 vs 7.1 and timing is a consideration.
Regards,
Jason
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
Hello,
I have tried to plug a Toshiba PCMCIA floppy drive (PA2612U) on to the
7.0-STABLE and I got "fdc0: does not respond":
ACPI set debug layer 'ACPI_HARDWARE' level 'ACPI_LV_ALL_EXCEPTIONS'
Copyright (c) 1992-2008 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, Randy,
Randy Schultz wrote:
| On Wed, 7 May 2008, Fabian Wenk spaketh thusly:
|
| -}Hello Randy
| -}
| -}On 07.05.08 18:21, Randy Schultz wrote:
| -}> FBSD 6.x AMD64 works great on this system, as does centos linux.
| -}> When I try to install 7.
Hello!
I had some troubles mounting the filesystem from:
da0 at umass-sim0 bus 0 target 0 lun 0
da0: Removable Direct Access SCSI-2 device
da0: 1.000MB/s transfers
da0: 3886MB (7959552 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 495C)
and decided to just dd the entire da0 to a
I havent looked at the code in detail, but I can't see that it would be too
difficult. What do people think ?
If the first drive is always priority=0, then it is going to be stuck at
the highest priority, or under your plan, the lower priority.
My original idea OTOH (starting the counting at
O.K., heres an initial version of the patch - relative to 7.0 release.
Please test and let me know if there are any problems. Patch should
apply cleanly if you are in '/usr'.
cheers,
-pete.
begin 644 gmirror.patch.gz
M'XL("",/(T@"`V=M:7)R;W(N<&[EMAIL PROTECTED](TC_+?\6$JRQV;($D/P!S
MX5L6G,1U8/:,
> Hmm, it would seem you need "N-and-upper" and "N-and-lower", but this is
> inconvenient. Your original idea is probably better.
Certainly simpler to implement. Ideally, of course, you could change the
priority on the fly (which would solve all of this) but the fact that it
is stored in priority
Pete French wrote:
>> Couple of ideas:
>>
>> - Don't use "128" as the default since it will lead people to think
>> there's an 8-bit quantity behind the setting (and subsequently develop
>> weird theories about how the setting works), when it isn't so. Use 100
>> or 1000.
>
> Are you sure it isn't
> Couple of ideas:
>
> - Don't use "128" as the default since it will lead people to think
> there's an 8-bit quantity behind the setting (and subsequently develop
> weird theories about how the setting works), when it isn't so. Use 100
> or 1000.
Are you sure it isn't an 8 bit value underneath ?
Pete French wrote:
> I am just looking at this again, and am in a bit of a mood
> for writing some patches, so I wanted to run the following idea past people
> as regards the priority system in the 'prefer' balancing method.
>
> Just to recap, creating a gmirror creates the first device with prior
I am just looking at this again, and am in a bit of a mood
for writing some patches, so I wanted to run the following idea past people
as regards the priority system in the 'prefer' balancing method.
Just to recap, creating a gmirror creates the first device with priority
zero. Adding extra device
STREETSOUL.EU - Streetwear Clothing Online Store Newsletter
*
Sunny Greetings to Ya all!!!
New Arrivals - New Brand - Analog Cloting!!!
Press here to view new arrivals from Analog Clothing! or copy the link in a
browser: http://w
> I assume SCSI is the best path forward (either SA/SCSI or traditional) but
> have been out of the loop on the card(s) that work properly for a good long
> while.
HP P400 cards are PCI express and SAS - they work very well under FreeBSD.
I've also used the cheaper E200 and that appears to be fine
On 8 May 2008, at 09:12, Paul Koch wrote:
Hi,
We have been trying to track down a problem with one of our apps which
does a lot of flock(2) calls. flock returns errno 11 (Resource
deadlock avoided) under certain scenarios. Our app works fine on
7-Release, but fails on 7-stable and -current.
test environment is:
- 8 core Intel machine running i386 stable
- 4 core Intel machine running amd64 current (20080508)
- 4 core Intel machine running amd64 stable (20080508)
- 2 core AMD machine running i386 stable (20080418)
- 2 core AMD machine running i386 stable (20080418)
- single core
Stefan Lambrev disait :
> cvsup.uk.FreeBSD.org is outdated.
> I know this is not the proper list, but which one is?
freebsd-hubs is, redirected.
I've noticed that recently but I should have send a mail about it, sorry.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dar
Greetings,
cvsup.uk.FreeBSD.org is outdated.
I know this is not the proper list, but which one is?
--
Best Wishes,
Stefan Lambrev
ICQ# 24134177
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To un
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The problem seems to be revision 1.51.2.3 of src/sys/dev/puc/pucdata.c
> Could you try the following patch?
Thank you, it worked!
--Ingeborg
--
Ingeborg Østrem Hellemo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Univ. of Tromsø, Norway)
___
19 matches
Mail list logo
