Hello lhmwzy,
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 11:29:12 PM, you wrote:
> That's it.
> Since we don't have the skill,what we can do is wait.
> Waiting is such a bad thing...
Though I don't have too much experience about filesystems, I
personally would be interested in this since it would be a pr
Hello lhmwzy,
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 11:10:24 PM, you wrote:
> Yes.
> It seems that nobody is interested in this.
> -Matt would not port is to FreeBSD,which is a big regretful.
I'm pretty sure there are people who are interested, it looks more
like there are no people who're capable of doi
Hello Carlos,
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 5:57:06 PM, you wrote:
> Do you subscribe freebsd-stable? This has bee discussed recently in this list:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-September/045506.html
I wouldn't call it "discussion". It was mentioned and then quickly it
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, September 26, 2008, 11:44:17 PM, you wrote:
>> As far as I know (at least ideally, when write caching is disabled)
> Re: write caching: wheelies and burn-outs in empty parking lots
> detected.
> Let's be realistic. We're talking about ATA and SATA hard disks, hooked
> up
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, September 26, 2008, 10:14:13 PM, you wrote:
>> Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it
>> isn't capable of fixing things?
>> Isn't it more dangerous to be it like that? i.e. administrator might
>> not notice the problem; also filesystem could bre
Hello Jeremy,
Sunday, September 21, 2008, 3:07:20 PM, you wrote:
> Consider using background_fsck="no" in /etc/rc.conf if you prefer the
> old behaviour. Otherwise, boot single-user then do the fsck.
Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it
isn't capable of fixing th
Hello Bartosz,
Friday, September 5, 2008, 6:12:12 AM, you wrote:
> My make.conf:
> CPUTYPE=athlon64
> MAKEOPTS=-j3
I would recommend to take that -j3 out from make.conf, it might screw
up make install, not to mention many ports might not build with it.
> # USE CCACHE
> .if !defi
Hello Jeremy,
Monday, September 1, 2008, 3:27:38 PM, you wrote:
[... links about problems with snapshots ...]
the dump can be used without snapshots, in that case is it a still
worse method of doing backups?
as for the snapshots, you made me even more depressed :)
I don't have huge hard disk so
Hello Kevin,
Monday, September 1, 2008, 1:13:24 PM, you wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I'm pretty sure I have done a full fsck, but
> not positive, so I will try one tomorrow. The system is in a location
> which is unmanned today due to the holiday, and a full fsck kind of needs
> either a h
Hello Michael,
Sunday, August 31, 2008, 7:12:54 PM, you wrote:
> Any progress here? Does anyone know if this will be fixed in 7.1 latest,
> or should we start looking for different backup solution (in this case I
> would suggest to remove dump from the source tree - having a backup tool
> that do
Hello Koen,
Friday, December 30, 2005, 2:30:02 AM, you wrote:
>>Highly likely it has a Lot to do with it :-) Maybe the master time
>>server had `date` run manually, or otherwise shifted, or came back
>>on net after an outage, & the systems noticed drifted time & corrected etc.
>> man ntpd
>
Hello Julian,
Thursday, December 29, 2005, 4:39:55 PM, you wrote:
> Highly likely it has a Lot to do with it :-) Maybe the master time
> server had `date` run manually, or otherwise shifted, or came back
> on net after an outage, & the systems noticed drifted time & corrected etc.
> man n
I recently noticed strange message in the logs:
| +++ /tmp/security.YBOfj4NZ Tue Dec 27 03:10:48 2005
| +calcru: runtime went backwards from 226760439 usec to 226756967 usec for pid
612 (sendmail)
| +calcru: runtime went backwards from 226760439 usec to 226756967 usec for pid
612 (sendmail)
Hello Joel,
Sunday, November 6, 2005, 10:21:56 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I've noticed that some CPU definitions have changed in /etc/make.conf
> between 5 and 6. For good or for bad, I have up until now been building
> 5.x for both p3 and p4 architectures with 'i686' but this particular
> definitio
Hello Kris,
Thursday, June 2, 2005, 11:06:54 AM, you wrote:
>> > in 1.141 of ffs_softdep.c you added a call to backtrace() if bp->b_vp
>> > == NULL..you removed it in current in 1.166, but some people are
>> > seeing it trigger on 5.x
>> So it's harmless?
> I don't know, but I presume the debuggi
Hello Kris,
Thursday, June 2, 2005, 12:37:41 AM, you wrote:
> It looks like debugging code (it's been removed in -current).
> Jeff:
> in 1.141 of ffs_softdep.c you added a call to backtrace() if bp->b_vp
> == NULL..you removed it in current in 1.166, but some people are
> seeing it trigger on 5
Hello Sven,
Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 2:29:36 PM, you wrote:
> Apparently this is still somewhat of a mystery, but you are not the
> first person to witness this:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-April/013679.html
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-Jul
Hello,
Today I noticed following message in the log:
> KDB: stack backtrace:
> kdb_backtrace(c07163b8,2,c661994c,0,22) at kdb_backtrace+0x2e
> getdirtybuf(d109ebac,0,1,c661994c,1) at getdirtybuf+0x2b
> flush_deplist(c282f4cc,1,d109ebd4,d109ebd8,0) at flush_deplist+0x57
> flush_inodedep_deps(c15ba
18 matches
Mail list logo
