On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:24:07PM -0700, Kent Stewart wrote:
> On Friday 12 June 2009 08:24:42 pm Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:45:01PM -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
> > > On 12 Jun 2009, at 6:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > >On Thursday 11 June 2009 9:33:24 pm Dan Allen wrote:
> >
>
On Saturday 13 June 2009 12:08:17 am Gary Kline wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:24:07PM -0700, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > On Friday 12 June 2009 08:24:42 pm Gary Kline wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:45:01PM -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
> > > > On 12 Jun 2009, at 6:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
This is a message in multipart MIME format. Your mail client should not be
displaying this. Consider upgrading your mail client to view this message
correctly.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freeb
I am looking to deploy a couple of hundered system, which are supposed
to attach to a network and be plug-in-and-go. I am thinking of doing
this with a FreeBSD installation, duplicated onto flash cards, and
dumped into some off-the-sheelt hardware. The questions I, what hardware ?
I've done some r
On 12 Jun 2009, at 9:50 PM, Yuri Pankov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:24:42PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
Whew!! i'm giving thanks to every saint, god and daemon known. i
rebuilt my kernel in very recent days (7.2) on my ancient
500MHz kayak, but did not go further.
On 11 Jun 2009, at 5:41 PM, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
Looks like boot(8) is problematic.
Okay, here is the June 13th noon update to this problem.
I once again installed a May 28th build. Rebuilt world and kernel
from source. Everything works great. No custom kernel, just GENERIC.
I then me
On 6/13/09, Dan Allen wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2009, at 6:32 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 11 June 2009 9:33:24 pm Dan Allen wrote:
>>> Isn't boot part of the kernel build? Why would installing the kernel
>>> not cause this problem?
>>
>> No, sys/boot is built during world. Likely some ch
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Pete French wrote:
> I am looking to deploy a couple of hundered system, which are supposed
> to attach to a network and be plug-in-and-go. I am thinking of doing
> this with a FreeBSD installation, duplicated onto flash cards, and
> dumped into some off-th
Sorry for the self-followup; correcting an incorrect URL.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 09:54:52AM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
...
> due to the two Ethernet ports and low power consumption, and put the
> pfSense package on it (FreeBSD 7.1-based) for a firewall; it runs a
> packet filtering bridge wi
> I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure that you'll have a hard time
> finding something that combines the low-power standalone type spec with
> a 64-bit capable processor. Once you get the higher-end processor,
That was my experiense when shopping around yes - annoying as I
don't need anything pa
On 13 Jun 2009, at 12:50 PM, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
I doubt it is loader fault, from your description it appears that
loader is never started.
Could you try to remove -DLOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT from Makefile?
/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
BINGO! LOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT is the culprit.
I rebu
I have now proven that the recent post June 8th version of
/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
causes catastrophic data loss.
Why on earth would this change not be immediately rolled back out of
the STABLE branch? For those on the bleeding edge with CURRENT they
expect to lose t
On 13 Jun 2009, at 2:41 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
On 13 Jun 2009, at 12:50 PM, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
I doubt it is loader fault, from your description it appears that
loader is never started.
Could you try to remove -DLOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT from Makefile?
/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
BI
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Pete French wrote:
> > I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure that you'll have a hard time
> > finding something that combines the low-power standalone type spec with
> > a 64-bit capable processor. Once you get the higher-end processor,
>
> That was my exp
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
> I have now proven that the recent post June 8th version of
>
> /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
>
> causes catastrophic data loss.
Then it should be disabled by default until the problem is fixed.
> Why on earth would this change no
Hi,
Pete French wrote:
I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure that you'll have a hard time
finding something that combines the low-power standalone type spec with
a 64-bit capable processor. Once you get the higher-end processor,
That was my experiense when shopping around yes - annoying as I
d
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:41:55PM -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2009, at 5:41 PM, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
>
> >Looks like boot(8) is problematic.
>
> Okay, here is the June 13th noon update to this problem.
>
> I once again installed a May 28th build. Rebuilt world and kernel
> from so
> http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/acatalog/T7-330_Barebones.html
Now *that* is very much what I am thinking of - OK, I will need to drop
in a CF->SATA along with the card, but thats not much hassle. 64 bit
and I can add in more RAM than on the other. Thanks, I hadn't realised
the new ATonms did 6
Pete French wrote:
http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/acatalog/T7-330_Barebones.html
Now *that* is very much what I am thinking of - OK, I will need to drop
in a CF->SATA along with the card, but thats not much hassle. 64 bit
and I can add in more RAM than on the other. Thanks, I hadn't realised
On 6/13/09, Dan Allen wrote:
> I have now proven that the recent post June 8th version of
>
> /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
>
> causes catastrophic data loss.
>
> Why on earth would this change not be immediately rolled back out of
> the STABLE branch? For those on the bleeding edg
On 13 Jun 2009, at 5:42 PM, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
On 6/13/09, Dan Allen wrote:
I have now proven that the recent post June 8th version of
/usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile
causes catastrophic data loss.
I hardly doubt that such change cause loss of data on entire drive.
There
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Aragon Gouveia wrote:
Hi,
Pete French wrote:
I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure that you'll have a hard time
finding something that combines the low-power standalone type spec with
a 64-bit capable processor. Once you get the higher-end processor,
That was my experien
> > I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure that you'll have a hard time
> > finding something that combines the low-power standalone type spec with
> > a 64-bit capable processor. Once you get the higher-end processor,
>
> That was my experiense when shopping around yes - annoying as I
> don't need
On 2009-Jun-13 17:56:49 -0600, Dan Allen wrote:
>How do I get to the old loader when the machine boots and immediately
>stops? There is no ability at this point in the boot process to try
>and get to the old loader that I know of. Is there a hidden magic key
>combination that allows this?
24 matches
Mail list logo
