On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 02:41:32PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 2008/6/7 Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Not only is this wrong, but it completely misses the point. Why should Jo
> > have to upgrade to find out if his servers will fail under the conditions
> > already articulated in exist
On 27 May 2008, at 23:00, David Buxton wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to use a 1.5TB Eonstor raid array with FreeBSD 7.0, but
I don't understand whether it is the raid or the scsi card or
something else that is causing the computer problems when accessing
the raid. My problem is that soon afte
John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday 04 June 2008 06:33:24 pm Andrew Snow wrote:
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
When you say that it doesnt work, does it give an error or? In my case
it doesnt give any errors just says it set it but I see that nothing is
set.
Here's one box:
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 05:51:38PM +0300, Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> By the way, there is another thing I am wondering about. If I enable HTT
> and Intel Enhanced SpeedStep in bios on a 3.00GHZ p4 CPU I see:
>
> cpu0: on acpi0
> acpi_perf0: on cpu0
> p4tcc0: on cpu0
> cpu1: on acpi0
> est1: on c
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 23:37 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> My point still stands. I think the behavior of the developers on the
> lists should be of as high a quality as the work they do on the OS (which,
> as I have stated, is first rate.) Descending to the levels that some have
> (some of whi
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 12:08:54PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
>
> > Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
> >people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
> >more stable than 6.2. I really hav
Hello,
apparently powernow on Opteron quad-core is not recognised; when
I kldload cpufreq (leaving it out of kernel) I get :
pci0: driver added
pci1: driver added
pci2: driver added
pci3: driver added
pci4: driver added
pci5: driver added
pci6: driver added
found-> vendor=0x9005, dev=0x0285, rev
Hi all,
What is the current status of support for high end SAN hardware in FreeBSD?
I'm especially interested in support for HP EVA/XP disk arrays, Qlogic
HBAs, multipathing.
How FreeBSD compares in this environment to RHEL 5?
--
Andy Kosela
ora et labora
_
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Furthermore, it seems the reaction of developers, that he wasn't being
specific enough are rendered moot by the urls above, which were easily
accessed by me, someone with little knowledge at all of two of the
three issues. So, rather than berating Jo for not producing PRs,
On Jun 5, 2008, at 1:39 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2008-Jun-04 22:22:33 -0700, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And please stop with the loaded language. I'm not asking anyone to
work
for me. I am suggesting that it is perhaps too early to EoL 6.2
because
6.3 isn't ready yet.
So you
On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
You are still fail to take to the time to even tell people what these
bugs are, no ones a mind reader!
People are trying to help you here but all I'm hearing is a child like
"It doesn't work fix it", with no willingness to even explain what it
i
On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
If its of major concern for you, then allocate some man hours, grab
the /usr/src/sys diffs between RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE and
RELENG_6_3_0_RELEASE.
The others on the list have stated over and over again that they
haven't seen any issues and would li
On FreeBSD7, i'm succesfully using Qlogic 4gb fibre channel HBAs (ISP
driver)
attached to Fibre Brocade Switch and IBM DS4700 (14 disks array) using 4
way multipath
with gmultipath.
Regards,
Daniel
Andy Kosela ha scritto:
Hi all,
What is the current status of support for high end SAN hardwar
(Top posted because I didn't want to snip what you said)
Bruce, all of what you said below is well known. I understand and
don't have any problem with this. You seem to be trying to address
something I wasn't asking about -- certifications, etc and such. Not
a concern.
The question I r
On Jun 5, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
If the exact regression between 6.2 and 6.3 can be tracked down,
great.
If it's in a specific driver, CVS commit logs or cvsweb will come in
handy. Otherwise, if it's some larger piece of code ("ohai i revamped
the intrupt handlar!"), chances
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:53:10 -0700
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a stable
> version and force people to choose between two different unstable
> versions? Is this really the right thing to do?
NO, it's not.
But you can't change that. T
On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
If you have issues with 6.3, your time would be better spent reporting
them (by which I mean describe them in detail) than waving your
hands in
the air and yelling at people.
Must you resort to nonsense and hyperbole?
I'd said nearly a
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 05:51:38PM +0300, Evren Yurtesen wrote:
By the way, there is another thing I am wondering about. If I enable HTT
and Intel Enhanced SpeedStep in bios on a 3.00GHZ p4 CPU I see:
cpu0: on acpi0
acpi_perf0: on cpu0
p4tcc0: on cpu0
cpu1: on acpi0
Hi, John. Thanks for your update and I'll keep your experience in mind.
As stated in previous messages, I'll open new threads in the
appropriate lists about any specific driver issues (with details) that
I am concerned about. This thread was intended to deal with the
overall policy issue
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:01 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Uh yeah, this has been in place for *years*. Have you actually
read the
support announcements? They are public ;)
...
Yes, and this is the FreeBSD definition of "long term support".
Don't like it? Do something about it.
Kris, is this ki
> I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't
> specifics. I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here. Even if
> it was known to work properly on my hardware the overwhelming amount
> of bugs in 6.3 indicates an unstable release.
No. 6.3 is very stable for us, on multi
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
There has been nothing of value offered in this thread, and it's
only served to piss off a number of developers who already put huge
amounts of volunteer time into supporting FreeBSD, and who take
pride in the quality of their work.
I'm hone
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The OP stated "argh argh sky is falling with 6.3!" but hasn't yet
listed PRs which indicate this to be happening.
He's offered hardware in a week or two - which is great! - but what
irks the developers is the large amount of noise and absolutely no
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
So yes, the way to contribute is to get involved. If you think there's
a real desire to take FreeBSD-6.2 (as an example) and continue
supporting security patches and critical bugfixes, versus the
larger-scale changes which seem to have gone on in /u
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
>> Yes, and this is the FreeBSD definition of "long term support".
>> Don't like it? Do something about it.
>
> Kris, is this kind of repeated nastiness necessary?
This is not nastiness, if you don't like the way the project manages
release lifecycle, yo
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 01:28:21PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> In rereading my quotes I may have not been clear on something. The vast
> majority of these bugs have already been fixed. ("not in a state that needs
> help identifying" was what I said trying to cover both that and known bugs
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
So he should at least be able to name the relevant PRs.
Or name at least one. Then nobody would complain.
I'm sure somebody would complain ;-) but yeah, valid. Unfortunately
I was on my 3rd day of less than 3 hours sleep and had to leave
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Chris Marlatt wrote:
I can certainly relate to a potentially standoff'ish approach that's
been seen recently. It's easy to take people's criticism as
completely negative regardless what is said. To be honest though -
people are using FreeBSD because it's a good pr
On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Ken Smith wrote:
As for re-defining extended support to mean 4 or 5 years instead of
just
two it's not clear us doing that (except for anomolies like 4.11) is
really in your best interests. :-)
2 years would be perfectly fine in my mind. I'd love to see 2 years
Jo Rhett wrote:
I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't specifics.
I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here.
Your concerns have been noted. You seem unwilling or unable to accept
the explanation that no matter what you think about the situation, we
don't have the
On Saturday 07 June 2008 21:41:18 Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
> > You are still fail to take to the time to even tell people what these
> > bugs are, no ones a mind reader!
> >
> > People are trying to help you here but all I'm hearing is a child
> > like "I
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm pretty sure the only person that's going to matter to is you.
...
This isn't the '80's, and we aren't in grade school. See above on
taking "no" for an answer.
Doug, is this really necessary? Is this kind of response going to help?
Chris,
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
It's quite possible what was proposed is an awful idea and if it is
so be it. But it would appear as though it wasn't even considered.
On the contrary. This, and lots of other ideas have been given very
careful consideration and have been reject
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
I have no sympathy for anyone who's going to moan about a previous
release
being desupported that isn't willing to put the effort in to make the
issues they are seeing get fixed.
How do you know I haven't? Point of fact, I have. This thr
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
When you do come back, your first message should contain a list of
PRs that you're concerned about, and confirmation (per jhb's
message) that you have the _exact_ hardware that is referred to in
them. If you can't provide that, don't bother.
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
It's quite possible what was proposed is an awful idea and if it is
so be it. But it would appear as though it wasn't even considered.
On the contrary. This, and lots of other ideas have been given very
careful consideration and
Mark, I'm confused by this message. You direct your message to me,
but quote Kris and Chris and then using those comments attack me. I
think you may have my own comments confused.
Finally, I haven't asked for anything you are attacking me for here.
You are apparently restating what you t
On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
It's not quite that simple. To do that, I have to block out time to
drive 45 miles during my supposed "off" hours and do the upgrade
there. Because, if it breaks networking and I'm at home, the server
will be down for at least an hour until
On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I agree that he has made those statements - and those statements may
even be true. When asked to provide details of the bugs or references
to those problems, he has refused. Random, unsubstantiated claims are
hardly evidence of anything.
I didn'
On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Scott Long wrote:
What is needed prior to talking about loaner systems and test cases is
for you to say, "Hardware XYZ isn't working for me anymore. It used
to
do FOO, and now it does BAR." That's the first step. It's a simple
step, but it's an essential step. S
Jo Rhett wrote:
This is why EoLing 6.2 and forcing people to upgrade to a release with
lots of known issues is a problem.
You keep saying this as if it's somehow unusual that 6.3 has a lot of
open bugs. Yet even a cursory look at the PR list (admittedly based
just on the specific drivers you m
Hello,
i'm experiencing periodic kernel panics on a server with FreeBSD
7.0-STABLE #0: Tue May 20 19:09:43 CEST 2008.
My big problem is that the system is not performing memory dumping
and/or automatic reoboot,
it just stays there.
Here' console output:
em0: watchdog timeout -- resetting
ker
On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
In short, the problem reports that the OP is looking at are not
immediately obvious to someone who doesn't already know what they
are, and he's not doing himself any favors by insisting that
everyone else "already knows" about these problems.
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:08 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Three people replied to Jo Rhett's initial email. Here's what they
said, with Jo's own text elided:
Among other things, you time-warped some of my comments into replies
to things people said to the comments themselves. But the most
cr
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
If you're asking why I don't turn a production environment over to
being a freebsd-unstable-testbed, I can't really answer that
question in a way you'd understand (if you were asking that question)
On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Vivek Khera wrote:
If
On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:41 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
As said before, the reason FreeBSD isn't supporting older 6.x releases
anymore is because there's just no manpower to do so.
Which is what I was asking about. I've asked the questions more
specifically since they apparently weren't phrased wel
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:37:11 -0700
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are the raw issues without any friendly wording.
>
> 1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other
> -RELEASE. 2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2
> 3. Overall amount of bugs.
> 4. Differenc
At 2:02 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
This thread was to question the reasoning behind obsoleting 6.2 so
very quickly. It's a policy issue, not a single bug report. It has
more to do with the "X results" column in a PR search than any
single one of the entries.
Some CLARITY:
There is
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Comparing us with, e.g., Solaris, we would not find a lot of
difference
in the support model. Althought they formally provide patches for
Huh? I'm totally not saying that you should be trying to match the
support model of a large corporati
On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
I still think your questions are legitimate.
You won't win the battle however.
Obviously I got a battle, but that wasn't what I wanted. I wanted to
understand the issues involved and from that determine how I might be
able to help.
--
At 2:37 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
Mike, could you do me a favor and provide me with a set of words
that will make what I am trying to say on this topic clear? I keep
saying the same thing over and over again and nobody is hearing me,
so could you perhaps help me translate this?
The
Jo Rhett wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > As for re-defining extended support to mean 4 or 5 years instead of
> > just
> > two it's not clear us doing that (except for anomolies like 4.11) is
> > really in your best interests. :-)
>
> 2 years would be perfectly fine in my mind. I'd love to
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Upgrading your systems to 6.3 takes _precisely_ the same amount
of work as upgrading to "6-STABLE as of today 00:00 GMT".
No, it doesn't. You can get to 6.3 with freebsd-update. And you can
stay patched with freebsd-update on a -RELEASE.
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't
specifics. I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here.
Your concerns have been noted. You seem unwilling or unable to
accept the explanation that no matter what you think about t
On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
Your concern has been noted and rejected.
My actual questions were never answered.
you are "challenging" others to support 6.2 for you. For free.
No, I never did that. I asked why it was a good idea. And I have
always offered to help
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
There is not a single committer that I know of who is convinced
by your argument that we (committers) should sign up for the
additional work of supporting 6.2 for an additional 6 months.
I never asked for that.
That is the answer to your "p
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
You are in fact saying 6.3-RELEASE should not have been released at
the
time it was. It should have been posponed 'till some open bugs were
solved. I agree with you that a RELEASE is supposed to be more
mature /
stable then a development ver
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
The fact that we reject your request that we provide further support
for 6.2 does not mean we did not understand the question. It is you
who are not understanding the reply.
At the very least, I phrased my question badly. Because I asked "w
At 1:04 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
If you have issues with 6.3, your time would be better spent reporting
them (by which I mean describe them in detail) than waving your hands in
the air and yelling at people.
Must you resort to nons
Seriously man, is it really necessary to reply to every single post?
How about you spend some of that time and effort testing 6.3 or 7.0
instead of winging about things which may or may not in fact be any
issue at all, as you have not even bothered to test.
- Original Message -
From: "J
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 14:37 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> These are the raw issues without any friendly wording.
>
> 1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other -RELEASE.
> 2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2
> 3. Overall amount of bugs.
> 4. Difference in code base bet
At 3:29 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
The fact that we reject your request that we provide further support
for 6.2 does not mean we did not understand the question. It is you
who are not understanding the reply.
At the very least, I phra
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't
specifics. I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here.
Your concerns have been noted. You seem unwilling or unable to accept
the explanation that no matter what yo
However, the fixes are not available in a -RELEASE version of the operating
system.
Does freebsd-update not address these?
Brian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To uns
2008/6/8 Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If stability is your main concern then you could throw some resources
>> at fixing 6.3 or throw some resources at backporting security fixes to
>> 6.2.
>
> I will apparently be backporting the security fixes myself until 6.4 ships.
And if you do, someone
2008/6/8 Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> The OP stated "argh argh sky is falling with 6.3!" but hasn't yet
>> listed PRs which indicate this to be happening.
>> He's offered hardware in a week or two - which is great! - but what
>> irks the deve
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:53:10PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
...
> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
> version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
> stable version and force
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2 years would be perfectly fine in my mind. I'd love to see 2 years
> of support for 6.2-RELEASE.
Well, you're getting two years for 6.3.
> 6.2 was (and *is* AFAIK) the most stable release of FreeBSD since 4.11
> and it came out the door with less than 12 m
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you have issues with 6.3, your time would be better spent
> > reporting them (by which I mean describe them in detail) than waving
> > your hands in the air and yelling at people.
> Must you resort to nons
Ok everyone, I think thats enough about this for now.
I think the developers and users have made their points clear, and
they're no going to agree any more (but they may agree less) over
time.
For now, I think we should wait for the following:
* Some users standing up, stating "yes, 6.2 lifetime
> I think the developers and users have made their points clear, and
> they're no going to agree any more (but they may agree less) over
> time.
You make it sound as if all users are of the same opinion as Jo. The
majority of the responses from users running 6.3 in the thread(s) have
been positive
Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, yes, sorry about that - thought it would be obvious. I always
> submit changes that way as I find that whitespace has a habit
> of breaking otherwise.
> [...]
> How would I set about doing that without the whitespace being messed up
> by email transit ?
--On June 7, 2008 2:16:26 PM -0700 Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
It's not quite that simple. To do that, I have to block out time to
drive 45 miles during my supposed "off" hours and do the upgrade
there. Because, if it breaks networking
--On June 7, 2008 2:41:32 PM +0800 Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/6/7 Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Not only is this wrong, but it completely misses the point. Why should
Jo have to upgrade to find out if his servers will fail under the
conditions already articulated in exis
This thread solves nothing. Two positions are clear.
Also, I recall harder words on openbsd list, with a
lot shorter thread. The whole thing is finished and
should stay in that state. All next posts could be
written, but no need to be sent.
Best regards
Zoran
_
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Ponticello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> i'm experiencing periodic kernel panics on a server with FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE
> #0: Tue May 20 19:09:43 CEST 2008.
> My big problem is that the system is not performing memory dumping and/or
> automatic reoboot,
On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
> version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
> stable version and force people to choose betw
77 matches
Mail list logo
