I couldnt figure out how to get my dmesg when it wouldnt even boot so I took a
picture... it says the following (basically):
booting cd0a:4.1/i386/bsd.rd: blah blah
entry point at blah blah
avm_page_physload: unable to load physical memory segment. 5 segments
allocated, ignoring blah blah
increas
Hello.. I know that OpenBSD is released officially on May 1st. I noticed
however that it is available on the FTP's (all of this just happened in the
last 30 minutes).
I made the boot cd and then tried to install but it seems to be very unhappy.
After it mentions the ramdrive... some text flashes f
Another interesting thing... I installed the amd64 version of 4.1 and it
works without a hitch. I also noticed a line that says:
RTC BIOS diagnostic error 80
It does seem to boot okay and everything seemed stable. I have installed win
xp on this machine for a week and no problems at all. I wen
One thing I neglected to include in my hand written dmesg was that amd64
seems to use CDBOOT 1.08 and i386 uses CDBOOT 1.06, unless my video capture
made the 6 look like an 8. Maybe this is by design.
Anyway.. I will stop flooding this board with my messages. Sorry ; )
---
From: "Tom Cosgrove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rob Waite" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: OpenBSD 4.1 install issue??
Rob Waite 1-May-07 06:22 >>>
One thing I neglected to include in my hand written dmesg was that
help!
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Cosgrove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rob Waite" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: OpenBSD 4.1 install issue??
Rob
Can you try a snapshot? VM_PHYSSEG_MAX was upped from 5 to 16
Hello..
I just added a rule to allow port 80 traffic into my server and started
noticing some odd blocks occuring.
It seems that some web connections are losing their state and sending an R or
F flag which gets blocked. I am not sure of the time but I think once I was
refreshing the page and it s
Yeah... sorry you are also having the problem.. if you have an evening to
start from scratch... I think you could fix it though.
I am not sure about this moving back from current to stable. This is what I
did (and it could have been more efficient)
1) Downloaded the source trees (src.tar.gz s
Oh yeah... I also noticed that others were trying the snapshot. I do not
think you should run it at all. I only used it to see if the change to
vmparam.h was likely to be the culprit.
If you are getting the "uvm_page_physload: ... increase VM_PHYSSEG_MAX"
error (and you wont see it easily... i
I am sorry to keep bringing this up... but I have still not heard any
authoritative answer to my question. It seems very likely that
the newer Intel ia32e chips do indeed support W^X.
By newer I mean since early 2005. Right now the AMD64 page
says:
"It also runs on the Intel ia32e processors (..
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Is AMD64 page out of date about W^X?
Rob Waite wrote:
"It also runs on the Intel ia32e processors (...) but since Intel
left out support for the page table NXE bit (No-EXecute)
there is no W^X support on the I
11 matches
Mail list logo
