Anyone ?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 01:58:57AM -0500, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>
> After recent merges to stable/8 I am now seeing errors on bootup of
> the following for three interfaces that will never see the light of
> DHCP. ?
>
> /etc/rc.d/dhclient: ERROR: 'dc1' is not a DHCP-enabled interface
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:38:06PM -0600, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, john fleming wrote:
>
> > Just thought i would post over here as i'm not getting a warm fuzzy from
> > checkpoint about being able to find the root cause of an issue. I have a
> > large install b
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, john fleming wrote:
> Just thought i would post over here as i'm not getting a warm fuzzy from
> checkpoint about being able to find the root cause of an issue. I have a
> large install base of IPSO checkpoint firewalls, which are based on FreeBSD
> 6.2. I've had
I can't seem to replicate it at all. I've seen it happen on 3 different IPSO
boxes so far. The last machine it happened on is maybe 4 months old. Basically
on all 3 machines once rebooted the problem doesn't come back. Checkpoint so
far is telling me its a known issue and they don't know what th
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:43:08PM -0800, john fleming wrote:
> Just thought i would post over here as i'm not getting a warm fuzzy from
> checkpoint about being able to find the root cause of an issue. I have a
> large install base of IPSO checkpoint firewalls, which are based on FreeBSD
> 6.2.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:43:08PM -0800, john fleming wrote:
> Just thought i would post over here as i'm not getting a warm fuzzy from
> checkpoint about being able to find the root cause of an issue. I have a
> large install base of IPSO checkpoint firewalls, which are based on FreeBSD
> 6.
Just thought i would post over here as i'm not getting a warm fuzzy from
checkpoint about being able to find the root cause of an issue. I have a large
install base of IPSO checkpoint firewalls, which are based on FreeBSD 6.2. I've
had 3 firewalls hang basically the same way, with something that
On 02/13/2012 19:13, Rick Macklem wrote:
> I just looked and at least some of the fixes were MFC'd to stable/8 about
> 8months ago. So, they aren't in 8.2, but will be in 8.3.
Well 8.3 is about to enter code freeze, any way we can check to be sure
all of the relevant fixes can be mfc'ed?
Doug
-
Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 18:23, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> >> Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount
> >> -f?
> >> I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated.
> >> All
> >> of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', b
Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 18:23, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> >> Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount
> >> -f?
> >> I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated.
> >> All
> >> of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', b
On 02/13/2012 18:23, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount
>> -f?
>> I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated.
>> All
>> of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', but the 8.x systems
>> (mostly
>>
Doug Barton wrote:
> Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount
> -f?
> I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated.
> All
> of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', but the 8.x systems
> (mostly
> 8.2-pN) are just hanging forever.
>
> Is this a b
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: Why won't 8.2 umount -f?
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:20:55 -0800
> From: Doug Barton
> Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
> To:
> CC:
>
Cross posting? (gasp!)
> On 02/13/2012 13:02, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Is there some magic I'm mis
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 13:02, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount -f?
> > I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated. All
> > of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', bu
On 13-2-2012 17:28, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:15:42PM +0100, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> On 2012-02-01 19:09, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-01 17:35, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> The SATA PHY counters for the disk, kept in GP log area 0x11, look
> perfectly fine.
On 02/13/2012 13:02, Doug Barton wrote:
> Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount -f?
> I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated. All
> of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', but the 8.x systems (mostly
> 8.2-pN) are just hanging forever.
On 13/02/2012 17:41, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On 13 feb 2012, at 17:08, Bruce Cran wrote:
pc-sysinstall doesn't work (well?) on non-x86 platforms so bsdinstall was
created as an interim solution.
I'll take your word for it, but as far as I know the backend is
shell-based as well.
Yes, they'r
Is there some magic I'm missing to convince an 8.2 system to umount -f?
I had an NFS server crash, so I'm trying to get the mounts updated. All
of the 7.x systems happily did 'umount -f', but the 8.x systems (mostly
8.2-pN) are just hanging forever.
Is this a bug, or is it something I'm missing?
sysutils/pftop was marked broken on 9.x and above last March[1]. Are
there any plans to fix it soon? It's a really handy utility.
[1]
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/pftop/Makefile?rev=1.17
--
Greg Rivers
___
freebsd-stable@fr
I tend to say "the right solution to a problem is to not do it wrong."
But.. given that Linux is fine with all the unaligned accesses, is the
major sticking point here the fact that Linux's block dev layer is
doing all the caching that FreeBSD's direct device layer isn't, and
all of those (cached)
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:02 AM, George Kontostanos
wrote:
> >
> > I can confirm that this is still a problem on 8.2 and 9.0.
> >
>
>
> You can not compare 8.2 with 9.0 per ZFS. What problems are you facing
> with your swap in 9.0 ?
>
I suppose you are having problems similar to the following:
h
On 13 feb 2012, at 17:08, Bruce Cran wrote:
> pc-sysinstall doesn't work (well?) on non-x86 platforms so bsdinstall was
> created as an interim solution.
I'll take your word for it, but as far as I know the backend is
shell-based as well.
/Andreas
>
> --
> Bruce Cran
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165087
Occurs simply trying to use unionfs:
mount -t unionfs -o noatime /usr /mnt
insmntque: mp-safe fs and non-locked vp: 0xfe01d96704f0 is not
exclusive locked but should be
KDB: enter: lock violation
Its possible to continue tho.
Then locks e
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:15:42PM +0100, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 2012-02-01 19:09, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> > On 2012-02-01 17:35, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Took a little longer, since "holidays got in the way".
> But even in the original server connected to regular i
On 2012-02-01 19:09, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 2012-02-01 17:35, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Took a little longer, since "holidays got in the way".
But even in the original server connected to regular intel sataports,
the device is not known and 2 commands failed.
Flash SSD is connec
Hi there,
I run in production a FreeBSD-8 stable server with a ZFS file system.
It used raidz2, so that ought to be very safe, I thought.
Recently a disk failed, and it was replaced today. However, the file
pool doesn't want to come back.
Below is the status. da4 was bad and was replaced (by a so
pc-sysinstall doesn't work (well?) on non-x86 platforms so bsdinstall was
created as an interim solution.
--
Bruce Cran
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2012, at 15:44, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM, George Kontostanos
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think that reverting is e
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Feasible: depend upon your definition of "feasible". You would have to
add all keymaps statically into the kernel. No idea which parts exactly
we talk about, but:
---snip---
% du -h /usr/share/syscons/
40k /usr/share/syscons/scrnmaps
570k /usr/share/syscons/fonts
1.1M /
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM, George Kontostanos
wrote:
> I don't think that reverting is either an option or a solution at this
> point. You can consider filing PRs.
>
How compatible is bsdinstaller with pc-sysinstaller? Are there any notes on
why a new installer was created over reusing pc-s
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:05:41PM +0200, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >I want to note here: the pf ALTQ options are a pain in the butt, quite
> >honestly. I've found in the past that removing the ones you don't use
> >won't result in a successful build, thus one must inclu
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 05:05:41PM +0200, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I want to note here: the pf ALTQ options are a pain in the butt, quite
honestly. I've found in the past that removing the ones you don't use
won't result in a successful build, thu
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 03:50:36PM +0100, Alex Samorukov wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 02:28 PM, Gary Palmer wrote:
> >>>
> Yes. But it will nit fix non-cached access to the disk (raw) devices.
> And
> this is the main reason why ntfs-3g and exfat are much slower then
> working
> on
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:50:13AM +0100, Peter Olsson wrote:
> Desktop: FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE amd64, generic kernel,
> running Openbox. My WAN is about 1.2 Mbps, and I try
> to run RDP to windows servers beyond my WAN.
>
> RDP to a Windows Server 2003 SP2 is fast and works
> without problems.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:09:05PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 13/02/2012 02:50, Peter Olsson wrote:
> > Desktop: FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE amd64, generic kernel,
> > running Openbox. My WAN is about 1.2 Mbps, and I try
> > to run RDP to windows servers beyond my WAN.
> >
> > RDP to a Windows Server 2
>
> I can confirm that this is still a problem on 8.2 and 9.0.
>
> --
> CTO, Hybrid Logic
> +447791750420 | +1-415-449-1165 | www.hybrid-cluster.com
>
>
> ___
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
On 13/02/2012 02:50, Peter Olsson wrote:
> Desktop: FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE amd64, generic kernel,
> running Openbox. My WAN is about 1.2 Mbps, and I try
> to run RDP to windows servers beyond my WAN.
>
> RDP to a Windows Server 2003 SP2 is fast and works
> without problems.
>
> RDP to a Windows Serv
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I want to note here: the pf ALTQ options are a pain in the butt, quite
honestly. I've found in the past that removing the ones you don't use
won't result in a successful build, thus one must include them all. We
do need ALTQ support though, for rate-limiting capability.
I don't think that reverting is either an option or a solution at this
point. You can consider filing PRs.
--
George Kontostanos
Aicom telecoms ltd
http://www.aisecure.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/list
On 02/13/2012 02:28 PM, Gary Palmer wrote:
Yes. But it will nit fix non-cached access to the disk (raw) devices. And
this is the main reason why ntfs-3g and exfat are much slower then working
on Linux.
But _that_ can be fixed with the appropriate application of a sensible
caching layer.
With
According to Kenneth D. Merry:
> The LSI-supported version of the mps(4) driver that supports their 6Gb SAS
> HBAs as well as WarpDrive controllers, is now in stable/9 and stable/8.
Thanks.
> Note that the CAM infrastructure changes that went into FreeBSD/head along
> with this driver have not g
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 07:36:25AM +0100, Alex Samorukov wrote:
> On 02/13/2012 06:27 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >On 12 February 2012 09:34, Alex Samorukov wrote:
> >
> >>Yes. But it will nit fix non-cached access to the disk (raw) devices. And
> >>this is the main reason why ntfs-3g and exfat are
Jeremy Chadwick schreef:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 03:49:41AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:11:30PM +0100, Johan Hendriks wrote:
Ok so it is not the mps driver who does the naming but cam, and that
also has changed on 9.0 Stable.
Well i use gpart labels for the pool, so
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 03:49:41AM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:11:30PM +0100, Johan Hendriks wrote:
> > Ok so it is not the mps driver who does the naming but cam, and that
> > also has changed on 9.0 Stable.
> > Well i use gpart labels for the pool, so i can use the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:11:30PM +0100, Johan Hendriks wrote:
> Ok so it is not the mps driver who does the naming but cam, and that
> also has changed on 9.0 Stable.
> Well i use gpart labels for the pool, so i can use the gpart labels
> to yank the right disk.
> But it would be nicer if there w
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Hendriks [mailto:joh.hendr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:42 PM
> To: Desai, Kashyap
> Cc: freebsd-stable
> Subject: Re: LSI supported mps(4) driver in stable/9 and stable/8
>
> Desai, Kashyap schreef:
> >
> >> -Original Message---
Desai, Kashyap schreef:
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Johan Hendriks
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Kenneth D. Merry
Cc: freebsd-stable
Subject: Re: LSI supported mps(4) driver in stable/9 a
Quoting per...@pluto.rain.com (from Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:17:46 -0800):
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:05:02 -0800 per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:40:41 +0100 Thierry Thomas
> > wrote:
> > > is there another place to put o
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Johan Hendriks
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:34 PM
> To: Kenneth D. Merry
> Cc: freebsd-stable
> Subject: Re: LSI supported mps(4) driver in stable/9 and stable/8
Kenneth D. Merry schreef:
Hi folks,
The LSI-supported version of the mps(4) driver that supports their 6Gb SAS
HBAs as well as WarpDrive controllers, is now in stable/9 and stable/8.
Please test it out and let me and Kashyap (CCed) know if you run into
any problems.
In addition to supporting W
> Do you have a spare partition? Probably use the swap partition temporarily.
> Install the 64 bits stuff into it. Boot from it and than install the 64
> bits stuff over the (now unused) 32 bits stuff and reboot into that. If
> something fails you can always go back to a bootable system.
> NB:
50 matches
Mail list logo
