On 20/07/07, Bruce Burden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
Problem: Firefox segmentation faults when using link encryption. This
happens on AMD64 and i386 versions (Opteron and P4 processors)
as well as Firefox 1.5, 2.0.0.3 and 2.0.0.4.
[...]
Mozilla 1.7.13 IS working
Hi,
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down. It
complains when servers are not reachable,
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>> Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>>>
>>>
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and
does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or sh
Hi all,
I have been playing with OpenOspf lately, and I came to a place, when I needed
to ensure that an ethernet interface should always go into DOWN state when it
loses its link (physically, for example the switch becames turned off). I have
tried to hire the devd daemon to do the job with su
Can you send the output of ntp.conf?
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> Stefan Lambrev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
>>> Doug Hardie wrote:
>>>
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
> As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and
> doe
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:07:10 +0200
"Christian Walther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you use any extensions? I've seen it a couple of times that Firefox
> becomes unstable after an upgrade. In this case I start by moving
> ~/.mozilla/firefox to another location and start from scratch.
yeah,this
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:24:15 +
Maxim Vetrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bart?omiej Rutkowski wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been playing with OpenOspf lately, and I came to a place, when I
> > needed to ensure that an ethernet interface should always go into DOWN
> > state when it loses
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:37:14AM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> ...
> ntpd will not change time if the difference is too big - I think it
> should be less then 1000s.
> ntpdate will :)
>...
Please try to be a little more careful: the above is incorrect.
From ntpd(8):
-g Normally, nt
Bartłomiej Rutkowski wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:24:15 +
Maxim Vetrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart?omiej Rutkowski wrote:
Hi all,
I have been playing with OpenOspf lately, and I came to a place, when I needed
to ensure that an ethernet interface should always go into DOWN st
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:46:52PM +1000, Norberto Meijome wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:27:25 -0500
> Bruce Burden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Problem: Firefox segmentation faults when using link encryption. This
> > happens on AMD64 and i386 versions (Opteron and P4 processors)
> >
Bart?omiej Rutkowski wrote:
Hi all,
I have been playing with OpenOspf lately, and I came to a place, when I needed
to ensure that an ethernet interface should always go into DOWN state when it
loses its link (physically, for example the switch becames turned off). I have
tried to hire the dev
On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:37 AM, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Other problem that I see is if you are behind NAT/firewall.
Because ntpd make a request and wait for response on different
port, so check your firewall configuration and blocked packets.
we have zero problems with ntpd behind a NAT firewall
Kai Storbeck wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Somewhere our IMAP software triggers this panic, and after some
> searching on my part I've found this report: kern/113823
> (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=113823&cat=kern)
>
> The software I am running is Dovecot serving IMAP to endusers and
> webmai
Tom Judge wrote:
As for performance issues with the SAS5/i, there is a problem in
the controller. A work arround was created by Scott Long which
created a sysctl that could be set to cause the controller to turn
on the on drive write cache's. These changes where commited to
RELENG_6 on 2
Michael Worobcuk wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
As for performance issues with the SAS5/i, there is a problem in the
controller. A work arround was created by Scott Long which created a
sysctl that could be set to cause the controller to turn on the on
drive write cache's. These changes where commi
Am 21.07.2007 um 00:18 schrieb Tom Judge:
Michael Worobcuk wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
As for performance issues with the SAS5/i, there is a problem in
the controller. A work arround was created by Scott Long which
created a sysctl that could be set to cause the controller to
turn on the o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:26:33PM +0200, Uffe R. B. Andersen wrote:
>> When I boot my FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p6, I get the following error:
>>
>> (pass0:ahc0:0:0:0): Vendor Specific Command. CDB: 85 8 e 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
>> 0
Michael Worobcuk wrote:
Am 21.07.2007 um 00:18 schrieb Tom Judge:
Michael Worobcuk wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
As for performance issues with the SAS5/i, there is a problem in the
controller. A work arround was created by Scott Long which created
a sysctl that could be set to cause the contro
> It won't fix it. The problem is dangling pointers to devices that no
> longer exist. And like all dangling references after 'free' you get
> bad thing happening.
> Believe me, if it were easy, it would have been fixed. If it was
> moderate to fix, it would have been fixed. It is a hard prob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am 20.07.2007 um 08:16 schrieb Christian Walther:
[...]
It's a pity that FreeBSD can't handle these situations.
Since no one here on this list has enough money to get development on
the road, maybe we could try collecting money? Everyone intere
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:38:14 +0200
"[LoN]Kamikaze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I mentioned earlier I remember it working during the 5.3 era on Stable, at
> some point it worked. I even remember removing my CD-Rom drive from my
> Thinkpad
> without running atacontrol detach. The system just to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:02:50 -0600 (MDT)
"M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Momchil Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : What is then the reason for the kernel not being able to unmount a
> : filesystem whose provider is no longer present?
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:43:35 +0200
"Uffe R. B. Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's nice to know, though I didn't expect it to be critical, as the
> disk has worked well for all 8 years, running with Windows 2000 and
> XP.
IMHO, you should never use "working on win..." as a statement to
23 matches
Mail list logo
