> On 6 August 2016, at 23:37, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> Is there any information available on when freebsd-update might
>> be corrected to upgrade some 9.3 systems to 11.0?
>
> Does
>
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211354
>
> help ?
>
>> I have a number of producti
On 08/02/16 21:25, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
Below is the merge of some high-profile virtual memory subsystem bug
fixes from stable/10 to 10.3. I merged fixes for bugs reported by
users, issues which are even theoretically unlikely to occur in real
world loads, are not included into the patch se
Hello,
I had another crash which I'm quite sure was triggered by mount_unionfs:
Unread portion of the kernel message buffer:
panic: __lockmgr_args: downgrade a recursed lockmgr nfs @
/usr/local/share/deploy-tools/RELENG_11/src/sys/fs/unionfs/union_vnops.c:1905
cpuid = 3
KDB: stack backtrace:
#0
Am 7. August 2016 08:37:45 MESZ, schrieb Kurt Jaeger :
> […]
> > I have a number of production systems on 9.3 that need to be
> > upgraded. I can't go to 10.x as it won't boot on that hardware.
> > However, 11.0 does boot. I can't afford the downtime to completely
> > rebuild them.
>
> Uh, tha
> On 7 August 2016, at 13:59, Florian Ermisch
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 7. August 2016 08:37:45 MESZ, schrieb Kurt Jaeger :
>> […]
>>> I have a number of production systems on 9.3 that need to be
>>> upgraded. I can't go to 10.x as it won't boot on that hardware.
>>> However, 11.0 does boot. I ca
Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I had another crash which I'm quite sure was triggered by mount_unionfs:
Just in case you are not already aware, unionfs is always broken. Read the BUGS
section at the end of "man mount_unionfs". If it were easy to fix, someone would
have done so long ago. Yes
i get these on all fbsd 10.3 hosts
Aug 7 04:13:06 cache0 ntpd[576]: leapsecond file
('/var/db/ntpd.leap-seconds.list'): expired less than 68 days ago
i have
# grep ntp /etc/periodic.conf.local
# 480.leapfile-ntpd
daily_ntpd_leapfile_enable="YES"
daily_ntpd_avoid_congestion="NO"
consulting th
On 08/07/16 22:11, Randy Bush wrote:
> i get these on all fbsd 10.3 hosts
>
> Aug 7 04:13:06 cache0 ntpd[576]: leapsecond file
> ('/var/db/ntpd.leap-seconds.list'): expired less than 68 days ago
>
> i have
>
> # grep ntp /etc/periodic.conf.local
> # 480.leapfile-ntpd
> daily_ntpd_leapfile_ena
>> Aug 7 04:13:06 cache0 ntpd[576]: leapsecond file
>> ('/var/db/ntpd.leap-seconds.list'): expired less than 68 days ago
>>
>> # grep ntp /etc/periodic.conf.local
>> # 480.leapfile-ntpd
>> daily_ntpd_leapfile_enable="YES"
>> daily_ntpd_avoid_congestion="NO"
>
> For whatever reason, /etc/periodi
On 11.0-BETA4 I have:
> grep expires /var/db/ntpd.leap-seconds.list
#File expires on: 1 Jun 2017
But I see what you do on 10.3-RELEASE. Looks like the update has not made
it into 10 (an I would guess 9).
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkober...@gma
> However, that patch works and I am now able to upgrade to 11.0-BETA4.
Would you continue informing us with the end result of your procedure.
Personally, I will go the same way on my home nodes. I'm sure latter
RCs would be more friendly regarding this upgrade. Since I have desktop
and laptop, I'
> On 7 August 2016, at 21:27, Zoran Kolic wrote:
>
>> However, that patch works and I am now able to upgrade to 11.0-BETA4.
>
> Would you continue informing us with the end result of your procedure.
> Personally, I will go the same way on my home nodes. I'm sure latter
> RCs would be more frien
> But I see what you do on 10.3-RELEASE. Looks like the update has not
> made it into 10 (an I would guess 9).
i will be patient. probably wait for 11.1. thanks.
randy
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/list
> On 7 August 2016, at 23:05, Zoran Kolic wrote:
>
>> The patch (correctly applied by hand) worked fine. The update completed and
>> the server is running 11.0-BETA4.
>
> I have sources on both boxen. When time comes, I will add a patch.
> Is it the same way to get a patch like " patch < some
> The patch (correctly applied by hand) worked fine. The update completed and
> the server is running 11.0-BETA4.
I have sources on both boxen. When time comes, I will add a patch.
Is it the same way to get a patch like " patch < something"?
You saved me from installing from the start, which I
15 matches
Mail list logo
