Re: gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024

2010-07-26 Thread Ivan Voras
On 25.7.2010 5:58, Dan Langille wrote: >> ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- >> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- >> GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU >> 5 110.6 80.5 115.3 15.1 60.9 8.5 68.8 46.2 326

Re: em(4) duplex problems with 82541EI on RELENG_8, -CURRENT on PowerEdge 1850

2010-07-26 Thread Brian A. Seklecki (CFI NOC)
On 7/19/2010 12:00 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: **/ -/*$FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.h,v 1.4.2.2.2.1 2010/06/14 02:09:06 kensmith Exp $*/ +/*$FreeBS Haralad: It looks like your patch is identical to the patch RFP'd from HEAD to branches/stab

Re: gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024

2010-07-26 Thread Stefan Esser
Am 26.07.2010 03:07, schrieb per...@pluto.rain.com: > Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: >> ... sector numbers (in CHS address method) >> [start] at 1 (which always suprized me ;) > > This goes back at least as far as soft-sectored 8" diskettes > in the CP/M era. > > IIRC, physical sector 0 of each track

Re: em(4) duplex problems with 82541EI on RELENG_8, -CURRENT on PowerEdge 1850

2010-07-26 Thread Harald Schmalzbauer
On 26.07.2010 18:19, Brian A. Seklecki (CFI NOC) wrote: > On 7/19/2010 12:00 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: >> **/ >> -/*$FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.h,v 1.4.2.2.2.1 2010/06/14 >> 02:09:06 kensmith Exp $*/ >> +/*$FreeBS > > > Haralad: > > It looks

nfsv4 strangeness

2010-07-26 Thread Vrachnis Ilias-Dimitrios
Greetings fellow list-mates. I have been trying to set up a zfs filesystem in order to share it over the network using nfs. The filesystem was easy enough to set up. As long I was using nfsv3, everything was in order. I was able to mount the share (from my archlinux desktop pc). My headaches start