On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 08:14:05AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> hmm, on Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:41:44AM +, Jacob Meuser said that
> > he's talking about not being able to unmount a filsystem, as opposed
> > to not being able to mount it. here's an example:
>
> thanks for the wonderul examp
hmm, on Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:38:17AM +, Jacob Meuser said that
> /*
>* Only root, or the user that did the original mount is
>* permitted to update it.
>*/
>
> perhaps that comment should find it's way into umount(8).
sweet.
if
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:00:52AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> ps. but yeah, this is all personal machinery so just use sudo
> and be done with it. mystery solved.
This is what I was suggesting, but managed to make a typo.
--
Best Regards
Edd
http://students.dec.bmth.ac.uk/ebarrett
On 2008-08-11, Brian A. Seklecki (Mobile) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 13:59 +0200, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> Until the cd-rom are actually created and the release is announced,
>> tags are
>
> Just trying to be helpful in reporting a build-problem during the releng
> cycle.
I th
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 03:11:58PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have had a look at cwm today. It looks nice. This is
>
> OpenBSD 4.3 GENERIC#698 i386
>
> I have found out that when I redefine term in .calmwm with a symbolic
> link to xterm with a certain font, that geometry etc, pressing
> C-M-
I've upgraded the router to 4.3-release and it's the same. I'd be
quite surprised if rtadvd was completely broken in something as late
as 4.2.
For reference, pcn0 is now vic0 in the 4.3 configuration.
Any thoughts people? Thanks.
2008/8/10 Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do yourself
Stuart Henderson wrote:
With IDE (Integrated Drive Electronics), the controller is *on the
drive*. A failing drive/controller can do all sorts of nasty things
to the host system.
So you mean I should not use IDE disks (PATA or SATA), because
Raidframe cannot support a failsafe operation with
Johan Beisser wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, phoenixcomm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Gang,
well heres my 3 cents,
first why use a stupid PC (any os) for routing.. REALY BAD jue,jue brake
down and buy a old Cisco 7200, 7500, 3600 they are all very good routers, I
used a 7500 for a
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:17:43AM +0100, saqmaster wrote:
| Hi,
|
| This is my first post here so please let me know if I need to adjust
| my approach :-)
|
| I'm in the process of setting up one of my obsd 4.2 boxes as an ipv6
| router (6to4). I've configured rtadvd, as far as I can see, correc
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:14:53PM +0200, Marco Fretz wrote:
>> How odd. I know at least one site that runs all of their BGP off of
>> OpenBGP on OpenBSD boxes that are dedicated as routers. In all cases,
>> these systems outperform the equivalent Cisco hardware for a fraction
>> of the cost.
>
> F
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:14:53PM +0200, Marco Fretz wrote:
> Johan Beisser wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM, phoenixcomm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Gang,
>>> well heres my 3 cents,
>>> first why use a stupid PC (any os) for routing.. REALY BAD jue,jue
>>> brake
>>> down and bu
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:14:53PM +0200, Marco Fretz wrote:
>>> well heres my 3 cents,
>>> first why use a stupid PC (any os) for routing.. REALY BAD jue,jue brake
>>> down and buy a old Cisco 7200, 7500, 3600 they are all very good routers, I
>>> used a 7500 for a while and now use a 3640
>>
Paul de Weerd wrote:
> I'm assuming you've configured pcn0 with an IP address in this
> network. In that case, can you try skipping the rtadvd.conf
> configuration ? rtadvd should do the right thing (tm) when given an
> interface on the commandline and that interface has an IP configured
> (it'll
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:30:05PM +0100, saqmaster wrote:
| This is the output of tcpdump on the server whilst the client attempts
| to get an IP:
|
| 12:19:15.728006 fe80::20c:29ff:fecd:f77a > ff02::2: icmp6: router solicitation
| 12:19:15.755793 2001:8b0:13:1::1 > ff02::1: icmp6: router adverti
Paul de Weerd wrote:
> Although we see RA's with a non-link-local source IP (bad), some more
> verbose output (tcpdump -vv) would've been nice. Here's a proper
> exchange (`tcpdump -nepvvs 1500 -i fxp0 icmp6`, in my case) :
My apologies, i've posted this in a couple of places and i've lost
track
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:56:14PM +0100, saqmaster wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| # ifconfig -A
| lo0: flags=8049 mtu 33208
| groups: lo
| inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
| inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
| inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
| vic0: flags=8843 mt
Paul de Weerd wrote:
> And here's the gist of your problem. Your vic0 interface doesn't have
> a link-local address.
>
> That's very interesting - did you somehow configure this yourself ?
> Generally speaking, when an interface is up and your kernel supports
> IPv6, the interface gets a link-local
* Marco Fretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-11 13:19]:
> Forget this. Cisco does CEF (cisco express forwarding) that's stream
> forwarding in hardware.
1) that is best case. some traffic has to go to the main cpu.
attackers can provole that and easily overload their tiny host cpus.
2) only the bi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:14:46PM +0100, saqmaster wrote:
| > And here's the gist of your problem. Your vic0 interface doesn't have
| > a link-local address.
| >
| > That's very interesting - did you somehow configure this yourself ?
| > Generally speaking, when an interface is up and your kernel
Hi all.
I have installed a SoundBlaster, which it's not configured by the current
kernel, then for get configured by the kernel, i had to modify the file
/usr/src/sys/dev/pci/emuxki.c
adding the line 206 which by default not there:
202 const struct pci_matchid emuxki_devices[] = {
203
My day job lets me "play" with "fucking expensive ones", I love that
statement Claudio. If you want commercial hardware that handles
large PPS rates you get purpose built hardware, not a Cisco router.
I also support 100M feeds going through Soekris 5501 running OpenBSD
and they perform very wel
Paul de Weerd wrote:
> Try again with link-local addresses on your interfaces, no rtadvd.conf
> file and tcpdump to see what's going on. Post back if you have more
> details.
Sorry, I have mislead you slightly (getting the link-local address
back in and testing reminded me).
With the link-local
On 8/10/08, Brian A. Seklecki (Mobile)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 13:59 +0200, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > Until the cd-rom are actually created and the release is announced,
> > tags are
>
>
> Just trying to be helpful in reporting a build-problem during the releng
> cycle.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:54:46PM +0100, saqmaster wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
|
| > Try again with link-local addresses on your interfaces, no rtadvd.conf
| > file and tcpdump to see what's going on. Post back if you have more
| > details.
|
| Sorry, I have mislead you slightly (getting the l
Paul de Weerd wrote:
> Well, all looks well from what you've sent.
Sorry Paul, it did work. The new IP was hiding at the bottom of a
large list of aliases on the interface and I didn't notice it. All
good now, thanks everyone :)
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:55:49 -0400, Ted Unangst wrote
> Since the people building the release are building the release, it's
> pretty likely they'll find out all on their own.
True. A couple of points which perhaps weren't articulated well at the
beginning of this thread:
First, -release is not
Is anyone having issues between patched BIND and running out of file
descriptors? I saw the thread at http://marc.info/?m=121711077022388,
but that's somewhat vague.
The problem: I deployed two OpenBSD 4.3 BIND servers to replace a
complex series of Windows and other DNS servers on 7/26. The
On 8/11/08, Steve Shockley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone having issues between patched BIND and running out of file
> descriptors? I saw the thread at
> http://marc.info/?m=121711077022388, but that's somewhat
> vague.
>
> The problem: I deployed two OpenBSD 4.3 BIND servers to replace a
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 03:28:25PM +0200, Guillermo Bernaldo de Quiros Maraver
Pedroche wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I have installed a SoundBlaster, which it's not configured by the current
> kernel, then for get configured by the kernel, i had to modify the file
>
> /usr/src/sys/dev/pci/emuxki.c
>
>
Hi,
> Forget this. Cisco does CEF (cisco express forwarding) that's stream
> forwarding in hardware. You don't have a chance to reach this PPS with a
yeah, expect that it doesn't route everything and in the moment it falls
back to cpu your router is dead. then there I saw all kind of "funny" and
t
On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Steve Shockley wrote:
Is anyone having issues between patched BIND and running out of
file descriptors?
If you run a nameserver that has any kind of significant traffic at
all, I suggest you subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . There have been
many discussions on
Hi List
Is it possible to bridge and NAT on one single network interface?
I have two machines that I want to bind public IP:s on, and I want to
bridge these. I have a few other machines that I want to put on a
private network with internal IP addresses, and I want to NAT to these
machines.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is this?
>
> drm at vga1 unsupported
...
> Here's my complete dmesg:
>
> OpenBSD 4.4-current (GENERIC) #1: Sun Aug 10 17:55:52 MST 2008
>@:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC
If you're going to poke at unsupported ver
(sorry, missed my first shot)
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:43 PM, alexander lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:36 PM, dermiste wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:57 PM, alexander lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi List
>>>
>>> Is it possible to bridge and NAT on one
I have built test implementation 2 machine pf/carp cluster and I am
receiving odd (or so I think) results with pfsync.
carp1 is wan, carp2 is LAN.
Both of these firewalls are connected back to back using a crossover cable
on em0.
When I "ifconfig carp2 down" the backup machine assumes the master
On 2008-08-11, Bob Rohrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, when I failover to the backup machine the tcp sessions for
> workstations on the 192.168.10.0/24 network
> get killed (not expected).
> A workstation behind these firewalls with the default gateway of
> 192.168.10.5 (internal carp ad
Hi,
Any idea on how it might be possible to boot the system step by step to
get an idea of where this bug might be isolated?
I strip the boot process as much as possible and this is a very old
issue, but may be there is a way to find more in it. Looking at it more,
I think, it's possibly in
On 8/11/08, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any idea on how it might be possible to boot the system step by step to get
> an idea of where this bug might be isolated?
The real bug is looking at load average and pretending it means anything.
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can somebody recommend well-supported external (u)audio
card with (u)midi controller?
Thanks.
Alexey
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 8/11/08, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any idea on how it might be possible to boot the system step by step to get
an idea of where this bug might be isolated?
The real bug is looking at load average and pretending it means anything.
Not saying it's a huge
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 8/11/08, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any idea on how it might be possible to boot the system step by step to get
an idea of where this bug might be isolated?
The real bug is looking at load average and pretending it means anything.
Also, Ted, here is an o
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>
>> With IDE (Integrated Drive Electronics), the controller is *on the
>> drive*. A failing drive/controller can do all sorts of nasty things
>> to the host system.
>>
>
> So you mean I should not use IDE disks (PATA or SATA), because
> Raidframe
can I compile a 4.3 source tree with also xenocara on a
4.2 installation??
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:48:04AM +0200, Jesus Sanchez wrote:
> can I compile a 4.3 source tree with also xenocara on a
> 4.2 installation??
No. Why would you want to? Do a binary upgrade and then either patch
or compile the stable tree.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Jesus Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can I compile a 4.3 source tree with also xenocara on a
> 4.2 installation??
If you had read the FAQ, you might think this is the sort of question
that would be answered there. You would be correct.
http://www.openbsd
45 matches
Mail list logo
