Andris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the same problem, but in my case it was not I486_CPU, but SCHED_ULE.
> After changing SCHED_ULE to SCHED_4BSD problem was gone.
If you shot your foot, don't complain that it hurts.
SCHED_ULE is declared "experimental" and known to be broken
in FreeBSD
On or about Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:25 , while attempting a
Zarathustra emulation Luke Hollins thus spake:
> Can you post your crontab? Maybe one line has the username twice .
Boy - that was the hint that helped me find the problem.
How I did this I do not know, but the /etc/crontab was
duplica
On or about Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 06:25 , while attempting a
Zarathustra emulation Luke Hollins thus spake:
Can you post your crontab? Maybe one line has the username twice .
Boy - that was the hint that helped me find the problem.
How I did this I do not know, but the /etc/crontab was
duplica
Mark Andrews wrote:
When looking in the querylog for BIND 9.3.1 running on FreeBSD 5.4,
almost every other log entry specifies an query. The only client is
localhost. I see no reason right now to have BIND wasting resources on
IPv6 requests, so I added
named_flags="-4"
to rc.conf and re
Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Why don't you go the other way and get yourself IPv6
connectivity. You do realise that you will require it to
reach many sites in about 3 years time as they will be IPv6
only
For almost 10 years I've heard discussio
> Andreas Pettersson wrote:
> > Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>Why don't you go the other way and get yourself IPv6
> >>connectivity. You do realise that you will require it to
> >>reach many sites in about 3 years time as they will be IPv6
> >>only
> >
> > For almost 10 years I've hear
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
Andreas Pettersson wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Why don't you go the other way and get yourself IPv6
connectivity. You do realise that you will require it to
reach many sites in about 3 years time as they will be IPv6
on
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > Andreas Pettersson wrote:
> >> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> Why don't you go the other way and get yourself IPv6
> >>> connectivity. You do realise that you will require it to
> >>> reach many sites in about 3 years time as they will be IPv6
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Andreas Pettersson wrote:
> > [snip]
> >Why don't you go the other way and get yourself IPv6
> >connectivity. You do realise that you will require it to
> >reach many sites in about 3 years time as they will be IPv6
> >only
>
> For almost 10 years I've
