Re: Apache/PHP ports

2000-10-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > And why not symlink apache_php3&4 to mod_php??? > > The ports system doesn't use symlinks. So why don't delete the old one? > > Anyway you time-response is amazing. =) > > I'm a species of the "American night owl". I'm italian and here is 10:30 AM, anyway thanks again =) Paolo To Unsub

Re: Apache/PHP ports

2000-10-13 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 10:33:22AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The ports system doesn't use symlinks. > > So why don't delete the old one? The files are gone, the directory structure probably remains because of a README.html file or extra stuff left over. I use cvs and not cvsup so I'm

Re: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE

2000-10-13 Thread Antony T Curtis
"Kuriyama, Kent K Mr (CPF N651KK)" wrote: > > Chris, > > Your email prompted me to look at mbuf utilization on a 4.1.1-STABLE box > that is currently not in production. > > outside# netstat -m > 130/160/7168 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > 129 mbufs allocated to data > 1 mbuf

Re: Sendmail 8.11/TLS

2000-10-13 Thread Brad Knowles
At 4:05 PM -0700 2000/10/12, Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > _FFR_'s are not documented. FFR stands for for-future-release. Understood. > Yes, BSD systems can use STARTTLS without sfio. Cool. I was not aware that sendmail was capable of using multiple different stdio librari

Re: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE

2000-10-13 Thread David Greenman
>"Kuriyama, Kent K Mr (CPF N651KK)" wrote: >> >> Chris, >> >> Your email prompted me to look at mbuf utilization on a 4.1.1-STABLE box >> that is currently not in production. >> >> outside# netstat -m >> 130/160/7168 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): >> 129 mbufs allocated to data >>

Re: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE

2000-10-13 Thread Matt Heckaman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, David Greenman wrote: ... :Perhaps I should have spoken up earlier, but none of these reports has : indicated a problem. The "92%" above is the percent of buffers that have been : allocated and are currently in-use. The system

Re: xl driver again? Re: mbuf leakage on 4.1.1-STABLE

2000-10-13 Thread Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Paul writes: > The xl driver never holds more than 128 mbuf clusters in the receive ring. > Whenever a new packet comes in, it sends one of the mbufs out and replaces > it with a new one. IT DOESN'T HOLD ONTO THEM. It will however complain if > it can't alloca

boot problems

2000-10-13 Thread mike . perik
I just installed 4.1.1-RELEASE on a dual 100mhz ALR Evolution that has a LinkSys 100 nic, Diamond Stealth 64 4mb vision 964, ISA Vibra16 Soundblaster(non-pnp), DPT PM2022A scsi controller which has 2 2G seagate barracuda, 1 Quantum Fireball (1.2 G), 1 DEC (1 G) and a NEC 3x CDROM drive on it. I w

RE: boot problems

2000-10-13 Thread mike . perik
Yes they are disabled. Mike > -Original Message- > From: Alan Edmonds [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:19 AM > To: Perik, Mike > Subject: Re: boot problems > > Did you disable the IDE controllers in the BIOS? > The ata driver is the IDE controller drive

Re: Minor problem with new ports setup

2000-10-13 Thread Andrew Tulloch
I noticed a while ago that only the ports that were installed at originall install time actually have a README.html and news ones that appear during cvsup don't. This seems to inidcate that the .html files are not part of the cvs ports tree. Anyone else noticed this or know why? Andrew On Thu, 1

Re: Minor problem with new ports setup

2000-10-13 Thread Chris Faulhaber
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:04:45PM +0100, Andrew Tulloch wrote: > I noticed a while ago that only the ports that were installed at > originall install time actually have a README.html and news ones that > appear during cvsup don't. This seems to inidcate that the .html > files are not part of the

Re: Fatal Tarp in 4.1.1

2000-10-13 Thread kris
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:13:43AM -0800, Jason Neumann wrote: > Greetings, > A few days ago I received a 'Fatal Trap 12' followed by a spontaneous > reboot on 4.1.1-stable. My installed src was up to date as of Sept. 29, > 2000. A common cause of this is loading modules which are out of date wi

Re: Minor problem with new ports setup

2000-10-13 Thread Chris BeHanna
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Andrew Tulloch wrote: > I noticed a while ago that only the ports that were installed at > originall install time actually have a README.html and news ones that > appear during cvsup don't. This seems to inidcate that the .html > files are not part of the cvs ports tree. Anyo

Re: Bad IDE Drive

2000-10-13 Thread Brian Behlendorf
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > IMO, WD went to pot years back their choice on concentrating on the low end > market doesn't help. Seagate's IDE drives seem to have been among the > slowest around. Years back started having better results with Maxtor and > then IBM came in wi