On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:45:15PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 01:55:51PM -0500, Scott Lambert wrote:
> > I have one dual PIII machine doing the same to me. I've been assuming
> > my issue is with the ATA controller. ...
> I agree -- these look like you have either
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on suport xz compressed packages for pkg_install, and
> libarchive on current supports natively xz compression but seems not
> having been MFCed (it should have beed two weeks after the 10th of may
> according to t
Hi all,
I'm working on suport xz compressed packages for pkg_install, and
libarchive on current supports natively xz compression but seems not
having been MFCed (it should have beed two weeks after the 10th of may
according to the commit message) I still have 2.7.0 on stable (from
yesterday)
I se
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Krzysztof Dajka
wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 of March 2010 20:15:29 Krzysztof Dajka wrote:
> > Hi, I'm having problem with upgrading my FreeBSD to RELENG_8. Building
> > world and kernel went smoothly I can boot with new kernel, but after
> 'make
> > installworld' I cou
On 06/08/2010 02:49 PM, Peter C. Lai wrote:
On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Why does FreeBSD 6.3
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:49:20PM -0400, Peter C. Lai wrote:
> On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > > On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Cla
On 2010-06-08 11:44:29AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> > >>Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
> 4.9 didn't?
>
> * 6.3 *
> $ sudo ipfstat -nio
> empty list for ipfilter(out)
> empty list for ipfilter(in)
> Z2984:~
> $ ifconfig rl0
> rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
>
On 06/08/2010 02:40 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hi,
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
* 6.3 *
$ sudo
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> >>Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
> >>4.9 didn't?
> >
> >The following output would help:
>
On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>>> 4.9 didn't?
>>>
>>> * 6.3 *
>>> $ sudo ipfstat -nio
>>> emp
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>>> 4.9 didn't?
>>>
>>> * 6.3 *
>>> $ sudo ipfstat -nio
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2010 19:05:06, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>> 4.9 didn't?
>
> The following output would help:
>
> - ifconfig -a
> - ne
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
>>> 4.9 didn't?
>>
>> The following output would help:
>>
>
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:30:49 -0400
Stephen Clark wrote:
> Hmmm... how is not responding to pings associated with forwarding?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/169.254
Link Local addresses are special.
HTH
--
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen
___
freebsd-sta
On 06/08/2010 02:21 PM, Guy Helmer wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Clark wrote:
Hi,
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
* 6.3 *
$ sudo ipfstat -nio
empty list for ipfilter(out)
empty list for ipfilter(in)
Z2984:~
$ ifconfig rl0
rl0: flags
On 06/08/2010 02:05 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
The following output would help:
- ifconfig -a
- netstat -rn
- Contents of /etc/rc.conf
Also, be aware that REL
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:45:59PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
> 4.9 didn't?
The following output would help:
- ifconfig -a
- netstat -rn
- Contents of /etc/rc.conf
Also, be aware that RELENG_6 is to be EOL'd at the end of this year:
h
Hi,
Why does FreeBSD 6.3 eat 169.254.x.x addressed packet when
4.9 didn't?
* 6.3 *
$ sudo ipfstat -nio
empty list for ipfilter(out)
empty list for ipfilter(in)
Z2984:~
$ ifconfig rl0
rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
options=8
inet 192.168.129.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.16
Hello,
I installed a FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE into a virtual machine (with virtual
box), using a GTP partitioning scheme, and zfs. The virtual disk disk
is 10 Go.
I dumped this disk image to a real machine, which has a 160 Go disk.
The system works fine, but I can only use 10 Go of disk space. How can
Hello,
I installed a FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE into a virtual machine (with virtual
box), using a GTP partitioning scheme, and zfs. The virtual disk disk
is 10 Go.
I dumped this disk image to a real machine, which has a 160 Go disk.
The system works fine, but I can only use 10 Go of disk space. How can
In preparation for 8.1-RELEASE, the ports tree will be in feature freeze
after release candidate 1 (RC1) is released, currently planned for June 11.
If you have any commits with high impact planned, get them in the tree
before then and if they require an experimental build, have a request for
one
On Tuesday 08 June 2010 5:30:30 am pluknet wrote:
> hi,
>
> I faced w/ subj. issue on IBM ServeRAID M5015 (LSISAS2108 SAS2.0 6Gbps).
>
> As I can see, lockup is caused by sleeping on sx lock after Giant was
acquired.
> Can r160217 help me or am I go the wrong way?
> from r160217: "Use a sleep mu
> I agree with you that this is a bit inconsistent and this had
> been done right in the first place when the port was created.
> But changing it now - I fear to much problems which may occur by very less
> gain on th eother hand and this is why I'll not change the package name.
I also agree with
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 07:26:45PM +0900, Yoshiaki Kasahara wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 02:54:44 -0700,
> Jeremy Chadwick said:
>
> > I realise you're talking about amd64, but I'm not sure how UMA is
> > getting enabled on i386 to begin with. It does look like it's enabled
> > on amd64 by
> So to recap, vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma doesn't show up in sysctl output.
Errr, does for me
$ sysctl -a | grep vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma
vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma: 1
Thats from 8.1-PRERELEASE on June 2nd.
...but all the question of sysctls is a bit of a red herring to me ?I'm
more intyerested in whether we
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 12:20:36PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:54:44AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_zfs);
> > SYSCTL_NODE(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, zio, CTLFLAG_RW, 0, "ZFS ZIO");
> > TUNABLE_INT("vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma", &zio_use_uma);
> > SYSCTL_INT
On 8 June 2010 13:30, pluknet wrote:
> hi,
>
> I faced w/ subj. issue on IBM ServeRAID M5015 (LSISAS2108 SAS2.0 6Gbps).
Also, subj FreeBSD version has general instability namely
w/ this controller (another issue). It locks up every time immediately after:
<118>Starting sshd.
<118>Starting cron.
<
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 02:54:44 -0700,
Jeremy Chadwick said:
> I realise you're talking about amd64, but I'm not sure how UMA is
> getting enabled on i386 to begin with. It does look like it's enabled
> on amd64 by default.
I believe that this thread had been started before this tunable was
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:54:44AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_zfs);
> SYSCTL_NODE(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, zio, CTLFLAG_RW, 0, "ZFS ZIO");
> TUNABLE_INT("vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma", &zio_use_uma);
> SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs_zio, OID_AUTO, use_uma, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, &zio_use_uma, 0,
> "Use um
On 8 June 2010 13:54, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:30 AM, pluknet wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> I faced w/ subj. issue on IBM ServeRAID M5015 (LSISAS2108 SAS2.0 6Gbps).
>>
>> As I can see, lockup is caused by sleeping on sx lock after Giant was
>> acquired.
>> Can r160217 help me or am
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 06:11:46PM +0900, Yoshiaki Kasahara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to add another instance of similar problems. I recently
> updated my FreeBSD amd64 box with ZFS root and 8GB RAM from 8-STABLE
> (as of Mar 1st) to 8.1-PRERELEASE (as of May 27th). After that, my
> box start
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:30 AM, pluknet wrote:
> hi,
>
> I faced w/ subj. issue on IBM ServeRAID M5015 (LSISAS2108 SAS2.0 6Gbps).
>
> As I can see, lockup is caused by sleeping on sx lock after Giant was
> acquired.
> Can r160217 help me or am I go the wrong way?
> from r160217: "Use a sleep mute
hi,
I faced w/ subj. issue on IBM ServeRAID M5015 (LSISAS2108 SAS2.0 6Gbps).
As I can see, lockup is caused by sleeping on sx lock after Giant was acquired.
Can r160217 help me or am I go the wrong way?
from r160217: "Use a sleep mutex instead of an sx lock for the kernel
environment."
after `#
Hello,
I'd like to add another instance of similar problems. I recently
updated my FreeBSD amd64 box with ZFS root and 8GB RAM from 8-STABLE
(as of Mar 1st) to 8.1-PRERELEASE (as of May 27th). After that, my
box started to crash every couple of days due to kmem_map too small.
Here is a (last we
35 matches
Mail list logo
