Hi!
I try to boot from CDROM with FreeBSD on IBM xServer x3250 M4 (P/N
2583-72G), but it always crash with message: "NMI ISA b8, EISA ff
RAM parity error, likely hardware failure".
Attempts to install 8.3, 9.0, 7.3 / i386, amd64 - result always was the
same. Screenshot of the crash is here: ht
Alexey V. Panfilov wrote:
I try to boot from CDROM with FreeBSD on IBM xServer x3250 M4 (P/N
2583-72G), but it always crash with message: "NMI ISA b8, EISA ff
RAM parity error, likely hardware failure".
This can be RAM error.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
16.05.2012 18:19, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
Alexey V. Panfilov wrote:
I try to boot from CDROM with FreeBSD on IBM xServer x3250 M4 (P/N
2583-72G), but it always crash with message: "NMI ISA b8, EISA ff
RAM parity error, likely hardware failure".
This can be RAM error.
I don't think so: with
On 5/16/2012 8:12, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Ok, I'm just impatient. I let it sit, and it eventually came up.
Would it be possible for the next 9.x release to set hw.memtest.tests="0"
when we discover we're under a hypervisor to avoid doing the tests? (or
default it to 0 in the installer kernel?)?
Alexey V. Panfilov wrote:
P.S. my case is the same as
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=11222
And this is strange, on the machine where I have this one installed (as
all other machines) I keep a MINIMAL kernel loading everything possible
from modules. Distilled kernel config looks li
On Wed, May 16, 2012 10:04 am, Adam Strohl wrote:
> On 5/16/2012 8:12, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> Ok, I'm just impatient. I let it sit, and it eventually came up.
>>
>> Would it be possible for the next 9.x release to set
>> hw.memtest.tests="0"
>> when we discover we're under a hypervisor to avoid
On 5/16/2012 22:05, Larry Rosenman wrote:
I believe this is due to the 8G of memory I put on it. (I like to build
big VM's.
It's directly proportional to the size of the VM.
Ahh! Yeah I rarely build a VM with more than a gig or two here in the
office (ie; where I use Workstation).
Dear List Members,
i trust anyone of you would have experience with Shorewall Firewall. I
have the following rule in rule file that is "/etc/shorewall/rules".
Traffic is not passing through.
ACCEPT net loc:72.211.25.74 udp 123
This rule is working alright. i have problem unde
On 5/16/2012 8:04 AM, Adam Strohl wrote:
On 5/16/2012 8:12, Larry Rosenman wrote:
Ok, I'm just impatient. I let it sit, and it eventually came up.
Would it be possible for the next 9.x release to set
hw.memtest.tests="0"
when we discover we're under a hypervisor to avoid doing the tests? (or
2012/5/16 Shiv. NK :
> Dear List Members,
>
> i trust anyone of you would have experience with Shorewall Firewall. I
> have the following rule in rule file that is "/etc/shorewall/rules".
> Traffic is not passing through.
>
> ACCEPT net loc:72.211.25.74 udp 123
>
> This rule is
net loc:72.211.25.74 tcp 25
>
> I don't see this question as related to FreeBSD -STABLE.
>
> But maybe you should explicitely accept udp packet returns. Your
> firewall (which I don't know) surely keeps states of TCP connections
> and implicitely accepts packets returns.
>
> Ch
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 15:01:14 - , Shiv. NK wrote:
> Dear List Members,
>
> i trust anyone of you would have experience with Shorewall Firewall.
I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion, considering this
mailing list is for FreeBSD and Shorewall is a Linux tool. Beyond not
understa
16.05.2012 19:05, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
Alexey V. Panfilov wrote:
P.S. my case is the same as
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=11222
And this is strange, on the machine where I have this one installed (as
all other machines) I keep a MINIMAL kernel loading everything possible
fro
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 08:12:05PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Would it be possible for the next 9.x release to set hw.memtest.tests="0"
> when we discover we're under a hypervisor to avoid doing the tests? (or
> default it to 0 in the installer kernel?)?
Actually, that's already been fixed, an
Hi,
I just ran powerd(8) in verbose mode and found that it isn't correct
count load.
# powerd -v
powerd: unable to determine AC line status
load 323%, current freq 2409 MHz ( 0), wanted freq 4818 MHz
load 222%, current freq 2409 MHz ( 0), wanted freq 4818 MHz
load 213%, current freq 2409 MHz (
TB --- 2012-05-16 23:08:07 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-05-16 23:08:07 - FreeBSD freebsd-stable.sentex.ca 8.2-STABLE
FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #4: Wed Sep 28 13:48:49 UTC 2011
mdtan...@freebsd-stable.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/server amd64
TB --- 2012-05-16 23
TB --- 2012-05-17 01:07:03 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-05-17 01:07:03 - FreeBSD freebsd-stable.sentex.ca 8.2-STABLE
FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #4: Wed Sep 28 13:48:49 UTC 2011
mdtan...@freebsd-stable.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/server amd64
TB --- 2012-05-17 01
TB --- 2012-05-17 01:33:53 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-05-17 01:33:53 - FreeBSD freebsd-stable.sentex.ca 8.2-STABLE
FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #4: Wed Sep 28 13:48:49 UTC 2011
mdtan...@freebsd-stable.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/server amd64
TB --- 2012-05-17 01
TB --- 2012-05-17 03:49:38 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-05-17 03:49:38 - FreeBSD freebsd-stable.sentex.ca 8.2-STABLE
FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #4: Wed Sep 28 13:48:49 UTC 2011
mdtan...@freebsd-stable.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/server amd64
TB --- 2012-05-17 03
19 matches
Mail list logo
