- Original Message -
From: "Rick Macklem"
Just a random thought that is probably not relevent, but...
Is it possible that some change for the upgrade is making the machines
run hotter and they're failing when they overhead?
The machines have full HW monitoring and we've not seen repo
Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andriy Gapon"
>
> >>> I would really appreciate if you could try to reproduce the
> >>> problem with the patch that I sent earlier.
> >>
> >> Hi Andriy, what's the risk of this patch causing other issues?
> >
> > I can not estimate.
>
on 11/08/2011 20:14 Steven Hartland said the following:
> - Original Message - From: "Andriy Gapon"
>
I would really appreciate if you could try to reproduce the
problem with the patch that I sent earlier.
>>>
>>> Hi Andriy, what's the risk of this patch causing other issues?
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Andriy Gapon"
I would really appreciate if you could try to reproduce the
problem with the patch that I sent earlier.
Hi Andriy, what's the risk of this patch causing other issues?
I can not estimate.
The code is supposed to affect only things that happe
on 11/08/2011 19:37 Steven Hartland said the following:
> - Original Message - From: "Andriy Gapon"
>
>>
>> I would really appreciate if you could try to reproduce the problem with the
>> patch
>> that I sent earlier.
>
> Hi Andriy, what's the risk of this patch causing other issues?
I
- Original Message -
From: "Andriy Gapon"
I would really appreciate if you could try to reproduce the problem with the
patch
that I sent earlier.
Hi Andriy, what's the risk of this patch causing other issues?
I ask as to get results from this we've going to have to roll it
out to
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 06:44:00PM +0400, N V wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Tried to use FreeBSD-9.0-BETA1-i386-bootonly.iso in VirtualBox to test.
> Installation stops after trying to fetch files from ftp. Attached screenshot
> is informative, I think. Seems to use i386/ twice for some reason.
>
same
on 11/08/2011 14:39 Steven Hartland said the following:
> The trimmed down output, removed the 10,000's of ?? lines here:-
> http://blog.multiplay.co.uk/dropzone/freebsd/panic-2011-08-11-1402.txt
>
> The raw output is here:-
> http://blog.multiplay.co.uk/dropzone/freebsd/panic-full-2011-08-11-1402
- Original Message -
From: "Andriy Gapon"
on 10/08/2011 18:35 Steven Hartland said the following:
Fatal double fault
...
#14 0x803a2cc9 in sched_switch (td=0x0, newtd=0x0, flags=Variable
"flags"
is not available.
)
at /usr/src/sys/kern/sched_ule.c:1852
Previous frame in
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Chadwick"
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:59:36AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
That's not the issue as its happening across board over 130 machines :(
Agreed, bad hardware sounds unlikely here. I could believe some strange
incompatibility (e.g. BIOS
2011/8/11 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:59:36AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
>> That's not the issue as its happening across board over 130 machines :(
>
> Agreed, bad hardware sounds unlikely here. I could believe some strange
> incompatibility (e.g. BIOS quirk or the like[1]) t
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:59:36AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> That's not the issue as its happening across board over 130 machines :(
Agreed, bad hardware sounds unlikely here. I could believe some strange
incompatibility (e.g. BIOS quirk or the like[1]) that might cause problems
en masse ac
That's not the issue as its happening across board over 130 machines :(
Regards
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Attilio Rao"
I'd really point the finger to faulty hw.
Please run all the necessary diagnostic tools for catching it.
Attilio
=
I'd really point the finger to faulty hw.
Please run all the necessary diagnostic tools for catching it.
Attilio
2011/8/11 Andriy Gapon :
> on 10/08/2011 18:35 Steven Hartland said the following:
>> Fatal double fault
>> rip = 0x8052f6f1
>> rsp = 0xff86ce600fb0
>> rbp = 0xff86ce6
on 10/08/2011 18:35 Steven Hartland said the following:
> Fatal double fault
> rip = 0x8052f6f1
> rsp = 0xff86ce600fb0
> rbp = 0xff86ce601210
> cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
> panic: double fault
> cpuid = 0
> KDB: stack backtrace:
> #0 0x803af91e at kdb_backtrace+0x5e
> #1 0x
on 11/08/2011 07:25 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> On 11 August 2011 07:55, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have added these device IDs to pucdata.c to support the Moxa CP-112UL
>> board family.
>>
>> Should I submit a problem report, or is there an easier way to get the patch
>> merged?
16 matches
Mail list logo