Please don't crosspost lists, particularly -security (which is totally
unrelated) and -questions and another list (which is generally redundant).
I've reset the cc: to -stable since thats the only one of the 3 I'm
subscribed to. Thanks!
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Andrei Grudiy wrote:
> Hello, kolleage
Scott Long wrote:
Rob wrote:
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 04:02:28PM +0900, Rob wrote..
Hi,
I thought 386 support had been removed since 5.X. But
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/installation-i386.html
says:
1.2 Hardware Requirements
FreeBSD for the i386 requires a 486 or better
Rob wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Rob wrote:
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 04:02:28PM +0900, Rob wrote..
Hi,
I thought 386 support had been removed since 5.X. But
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/installation-i386.html
says:
1.2 Hardware Requirements
FreeBSD for the i386 requires a 48
--On Donnerstag, 25. November 2004 17:28 Uhr +0900 Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You'll need an FPU and a custom kernel that is compiled with the
CPU_I386 option.
I'm not an expert here, but I found this:
80386SX = 386 w/o FPU
80386DX = 386 w/ FPU
plain wrong.
80386SX = 386 with 16
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob wrote:
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Did you try any machines that used Hyperthreading? I'd be interested to
see how those machines fare based on the number of logical and real
CPUs.
Although people suggest "-j4" as optimal in gene
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
> io bound?
> I can't test this myself, because my laptop is to slow for making these
> tests any fun.
Based on my tests, 'make index' is only faster with -j
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:28:55 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
io bound?
I can't test this myself, because my laptop is to slow for making these
tes
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000. In
other words, buildworld is CPU bound and takes about 6e12 clock
cycles. Use -j.
Nick B
___
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:33:55PM +0100, Eirik Ãverby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK I see, makes sense. So it's not really a raid3 issue, but an
> implementation issue.
> The only problem then is - gvinum being in a completely unusable state
> (for raid5 anyway), what are my alternatives? I h
Vallo Kallaste wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:33:55PM +0100, Eirik Øverby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK I see, makes sense. So it's not really a raid3 issue, but an
implementation issue.
The only problem then is - gvinum being in a completely unusable state
(for raid5 anyway), what are my alt
Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought 386 support had been removed since 5.X. But
> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/installation-i386.html
> says:
>
>1.2 Hardware Requirements
>FreeBSD for the i386 requires a 486 or better processor to install
>and run (although Free
Is it possible to cvsup from 5.2 to 5.3 without booting in single mode?
I have a remote machine and want update it, but it is no console access,
only SSH.
Thanks...
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sta
> Is it possible to cvsup from 5.2 to 5.3 without booting in single mode?
> I have a remote machine and want update it, but it is no console access,
> only SSH.
You don't actually need to reboot in single-user mode. Just make sure your
users wouldn't use the server hard during the
# mergemaster -p
Hi all,
Is there any graphicscard that is known to work better than others with
freebsd/x11? (open sourcecode for the drivers, etc)
-Alex
--
alex bustamante - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listin
After a few days of mostly test load, top reports that the slapd process
(OpenLDAP server) is huge:
439 ldap 200 149M 6128K kserel 0:07 0.00% 0.00% slapd
I know that the actually used memory size is the 6MB figure above, but
why does it allocate almost 150MB? Is it normal?
__
Quoth alex bustamante on Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 17:02:12 +0100
> Is there any graphicscard that is known to work better than others with
> freebsd/x11? (open sourcecode for the drivers, etc)
> -Alex
I've had no problems with Radeon cards at all. But what you need to
look at is www.x.org and check t
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:02:12PM +0100, alex bustamante wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any graphicscard that is known to work better than others with
> freebsd/x11? (open sourcecode for the drivers, etc)
> -Alex
>
Hello!
Matrox MGA G400.
Serg.
___
[
> Quoth alex bustamante on Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 17:02:12 +0100
>> Is there any graphicscard that is known to work better than others with
>> freebsd/x11? (open sourcecode for the drivers, etc)
>> -Alex
>
> I've had no problems with Radeon cards at all. But what you need to
> look at is www.x.org
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:28:55 -0800, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:09:35AM +0100, Ronald Klop wrote:
> >
> >>Would all this work for 'make index' for the ports also? Or is this more
> >>io
On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 16:13, alex bustamante wrote:
> Yes, i know i can check out what cards are supported. I have a Nvidia card
> now, it works ok. I was just curious to know of other cards that maybe
> runs faster or some like that.
Nvidia are a good option. They supply their own (binary only)
On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 17:52, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>
> The NVIDIA drivers are completely crap! They do not work and contain
> countless errors which will cause system failures on every single
> machine I have tried to use them with. Do not ever buy or attempt to
> use anything made by NVIDIA. They
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 17:06 +, Mark Dixon wrote:
> On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 16:13, alex bustamante wrote:
> > Yes, i know i can check out what cards are supported. I have a Nvidia card
> > now, it works ok. I was just curious to know of other cards that maybe
> > runs faster or some like that.
>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 06:07:36PM +, Mark Dixon wrote:
> On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 17:52, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> >
> > The NVIDIA drivers are completely crap! They do not work and contain
> > countless errors which will cause system failures on every single
> > machine I have tried to use them wit
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
I have to disagree. Packet loss is likely according to some of my
tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches) will cause
serious packet loss at 20Mbps dat
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:43:28 +0100
Fredrik Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think this is about which card is better than the other, more
> about NVidia being reactionary bastards who refuse the idea of open
> source. NVidia graphic cards are probably great for playing games in
> wi
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 19:43 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 06:07:36PM +, Mark Dixon wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 17:52, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > >
> > > The NVIDIA drivers are completely crap! They do not work and contain
> > > countless errors which will cause sys
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 20:36 +0100, alex bustamante wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 19:43 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 06:07:36PM +, Mark Dixon wrote:
> > > On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 17:52, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The NVIDIA drivers are completely crap! They
> "Joe" == Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe> Matrox supports developers by actually publishing the specs.
Joe> NVidia does not publish any information about its hardware.
They used to.
Just check Matrox forums to see complete lack of interest in giving
access to specs for Parhel
"alex bustamante" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any graphicscard that is known to work better than others with
> freebsd/x11? (open sourcecode for the drivers, etc)
All Radeons up to 9100 (9200, but that one is slower). Unfortunately,
that excludes all reasonably new cards.
-
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 20:51 +0100, Eric Masson wrote:
> > "Joe" == Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joe> Matrox supports developers by actually publishing the specs.
> Joe> NVidia does not publish any information about its hardware.
>
> They used to.
>
> Just check Matrox forums
Harald Arnesen wrote:
All Radeons up to 9100 (9200, but that one is slower). Unfortunately,
that excludes all reasonably new cards.
The newer cards work very well. I have a X800se PCI-Express card and it
works like a charm with X.org 6.8.1 on 5.3. The only thing that's
missing in the newer Rade
alex bustamante wrote:
Why is it so hard for the manufacturers to release everything in the
open? every *ix/bsd user on the planet would run and buy their cards if
everything was open.
"Every *ix/bsd" user is still a lot less than 0.5% of their clientele,
so they simply don't bother.
--
Matthia
Has anyone had this problem?
FreeBSD 5.3
Gnome 2.8.1
irssi 0.8.9
--
alex bustamante - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
alex bustamante wrote:
How many manufactures release their drivers in open source? Does Matrox
do it?
No. In fact, Matrox was one of the pioneers in the concept of binary-only
driver stubs with open-source interfaces (Matrox calls it HAL/hallib), which
is now a pretty common way of providing clos
On Nov 25, 2004, at 9:03 PM, Matthias Buelow wrote:
Harald Arnesen wrote:
All Radeons up to 9100 (9200, but that one is slower). Unfortunately,
that excludes all reasonably new cards.
The newer cards work very well. I have a X800se PCI-Express card and
it works like a charm with X.org 6.8.1 on 5.
> >>tests. With the re driver, no change except placing a 100BT setup with
> >>no packet loss to a gigE setup (both linksys switches) will cause
> >>serious packet loss at 20Mbps data rates. I have discovered the only
> >>way to get good performance with no packet loss was to
> >>
> >>1) Remove i
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 00:22, Scott Long wrote:
> secmgr wrote:
> > Can someone point me to what "safe mode" sets so I can debug whats
> > broke?
> >
> > thanks
> > jim
> >
>
> It disables ACPI, APIC, ATA DMA, ATAPI DMA, ATA Write Cache, and EISA.
>
> Scott
Many thanks! I tried disabling ATA/A
I have a 4.10-STABLE machine that I want to migrate to 5.3-STABLE. Most
of the bases are covered, but I'm not sure what to expect for my vinum
volumes. I don't have anything esoteric (see attached config), but can
I just expect "sed -i.bak -e 's/vinum/gvinum/' /etc/fstab" to leave me
with workin
>>The only problem then is - gvinum being in a completely unusable state
>>(for raid5 anyway), what are my alternatives? I have four 160gb IDE
>>drives, and I want capacity+redundancy. Performance is a non-issue,
>>really. What do I do - in software?
What's unusable about it? I've 4 250GB ATA driv
> > >ifnet and netisr queues. You could also try
> setting net.isr.enable=1 to
> > >enable direct dispatch, which in the in-bound
> direction would reduce the
> > >number of context switches and queueing. It
> sounds like the device driver
> > >has a limit of 256 receive and transmit
> descriptor
> Note that you will need a hardware FPU (i387 math co-pro).
> FreeBSD 4.x supports math emulation, so you don't need a
> hardware FPU there, but apparently that support has been
> removed in FreeBSD 5.x.
Out of curiosity, what happened to this code?
Was there some incompatibility, did it have th
Scott Long wrote:
Rob wrote:
1.2 Hardware Requirements
FreeBSD for the i386 requires a 486 or better processor to install
and run (although FreeBSD can run on 386 processors with a custom
kernel)
Btw: The "at least 8 megs of RAM to install and 7 megs to run" needs some
rather big annotatio
Brian Szymanski wrote:
Note that you will need a hardware FPU (i387 math co-pro).
FreeBSD 4.x supports math emulation, so you don't need a
hardware FPU there, but apparently theffort to phase 80386 support out of the
OS. It's been nearly 20at support has been
removed in FreeBSD 5.x.
Out of curio
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Rob wrote:
1.2 Hardware Requirements
FreeBSD for the i386 requires a 486 or better processor to install
and run (although FreeBSD can run on 386 processors with a custom
kernel)
Btw: The "at least 8 megs of RAM to install and 7 megs to run" needs
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:04:51 +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote
> alex bustamante wrote:
>
> > Why is it so hard for the manufacturers to release everything in the
> > open? every *ix/bsd user on the planet would run and buy their cards if
> > everything was open.
>
> "Every *ix/bsd" user is still a lo
Jorn Argelo wrote:
It's simple why they don't make it open source. Making it open source makes it
easier for ATi to steal their ideas and they can figure out construction of
their GPUs (think of bugs or flaws in the driver or the architecture).
I wonder what "secrets" that might be? After all, a b
Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (but are probably well-known to the competitor). With the drivers
> getting bigger and bigger (the ATI Catalyst graphics driver component
> alone is over 8 megs), maybe a lot of the logics is actually in the
> proprietary driver code?
Likely. The
> What's unusable about it? I've 4 250GB ATA drives, desiring capacity +
> redundancy, but don't care about speed, much like you, and gvinum raid 5
> has suited me just fine this past few weeks. Eats a lot of system cpu when
> there is heavy IO to the R5, but I've booted up with a drive unplugged a
Scott Long wrote:
running. 6.0 is not going to have any 80386 support at all, so consider
this another sign to either upgrade your hardware or consider an older
FreeBSD release (2.2.x ?) for your needs.
Of course NetBSD still supports the 80386, so it might be an interesting
option if the OP want
Nick Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
Sorry, yes you're right.
In other words, buildworld is CPU bound and takes about 6e12 clock
cy
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:44:53AM +0900, Rob wrote:
> Nick Barnes wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
> >
> >
> >Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
>
> Sorry, ye
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:44:53AM +0900, Rob wrote:
Nick Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:19:02 +0900, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
time(minutes) * speed(MHz) * nproc / 1000 MHz
Looking at your examples, it seems you divide by 1e5, not by 1000.
Sorry, yes you're righ
This came out of thin air, I have no idea what caused it and how to reproduce
it, but I had crash dumps enabled, so here goes... Could this be a sign of a
hdd going bad?
Backtrace:
IdlePTD at physical address 0x005e9000
initial pcb at physical address 0x004ce4a0
panicstr: ffs_blkfree: bad size
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 06:00:43AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> This came out of thin air, I have no idea what caused it and how to reproduce
> it, but I had crash dumps enabled, so here goes... Could this be a sign of a
> hdd going bad?
It's possible. Will you please post the output of `
On Friday, 26. November 2004 08:25, Xin LI wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 06:00:43AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > This came out of thin air, I have no idea what caused it and how to
> > reproduce it, but I had crash dumps enabled, so here goes... Could this
> > be a sign of a hdd going ba
55 matches
Mail list logo
