On Jul 20 18:34:50, dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
On Jul 20 22:14:52, h...@stare.cz wrote:
I believe I have bitched about this before,
but I have come to it again with new install.
If I use [dhcp] to configure an interface during an install,
the ephemeral DHCP-assigned address
On 07/21/13 09:02, Jan Stary wrote:
On Jul 20 18:34:50, dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
On Jul 20 22:14:52, h...@stare.cz wrote:
I believe I have bitched about this before,
but I have come to it again with new install.
If I use [dhcp] to configure an interface during an install,
the ephemeral
The reported problems are gone in CURRENT:
# dmesg|head -n2
OpenBSD 5.4 (GENERIC.MP) #0: Sat Jul 20 17:56:10 CEST 2013
root@test:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
time buildsrc.sh takes 31 minutes.
measured directly after building src (which was slow before):
# time tar -xzpf
On 07/21/13 09:24, Alexander Hall wrote:
Since we by default allow dhclient to rewrite (and thus a dhcp server to
dictate) our hostname, I'm wondering if a 'lookup hostname file bind' in
resolv.conf could be useful... But I expect being flamed for it. :-)
Thinking of it, what address would it
All,
during my tests I seen that CPU on all cores and memory usage was very low.
Just interesting if there are any bottlenecks and how to fix them.
1) Does anybody care tcp stack tuning for high speed IPSEC ?
2) Can I run IPSEC (that's isakmpd ?) on other cores?
Pierre,
can you share your
On 2013 Jul 21 (Sun) at 14:16:32 +0300 (+0300), Evgeniy Sudyr wrote:
:All,
:
:during my tests I seen that CPU on all cores and memory usage was very low.
:Just interesting if there are any bottlenecks and how to fix them.
Lots of bottlenecks. They can only be fixed in code, and others are
working
Kenneth R Westerback kwesterback at rogers.com writes:
I don't really get a vote as i'm not a developer, however cookies to anyone
who fixes this the correct way.
--
Sam Fourman Jr.
Define 'correct way'.
Personally, I have found running BIND and placing 127.0.0.1 to
Ha! This seems to assume that the (fdisk) DOS partition
is the 'i' partition in the disklabel - it is not;
I created a [c]ustom disklabel.
A bunch of architectures work this way. And it is a quite normal
expectation that the 'i' partition match the 'spoofed label'
semantics.
But for now I
Hello misc@,
are disks with logical sector sizes other than 512-bytes supported? I can
get basic functionality with a 4k-sector drive, still there are some
flaws. Does it make sense to report these bugs now, or is it too early?
Regards,
David
are disks with logical sector sizes other than 512-bytes supported? I can
get basic functionality with a 4k-sector drive, still there are some
flaws. Does it make sense to report these bugs now, or is it too early?
Thanks for your very detailed question.
Detailed answer follows:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013, Theo de Raadt wrote:
are disks with logical sector sizes other than 512-bytes supported? I can
get basic functionality with a 4k-sector drive, still there are some
flaws. Does it make sense to report these bugs now, or is it too early?
Thanks for your very detailed
Explanation:
I met quite a few flaws when working with 4k-sector drives.
Since you won't describe the flaws at all, I think you are full
of it.
In general, what I've seen is that if something works, but has a bug,
submit a bug report.
On 2013 Jul 21 (Sun) at 18:44:11 +0200 (+0200), David Vasek wrote:
:Detailed question once again:
:Does it makes sense to report bugs
YES.
--
Patageometry, n.:
The study of those mathematical properties that are invariant
under brain transplants.
David Vasek va...@fido.cz wrote:
I met quite a few flaws when working with 4k-sector drives. I am not sure
if such drives are supported. If they are not supported yet
They are supported and I wouldn't expect any flaws.
Simply put: shall I send any reports concerning 4k-sectors on -cuurent?
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 04:55:35PM +0200, David Vasek wrote:
Hello misc@,
are disks with logical sector sizes other than 512-bytes supported?
I can get basic functionality with a 4k-sector drive, still there
are some flaws. Does it make sense to report these bugs now, or is
it too early?
Hello again.
disklabel(8) writes its label sector outside of A6 partition, possibly into
other partitions and overwrites data there. Looks like 512-byte sectors
are silently expected somewhere here, but I didn't check the code.
In the example below the label sector has been written to offset
Hello,
I guess this one is something expected. A 4k-sector NTFS filesystem can't be
mounted as of 5.3/i386. OTOH, it works with Windows XP. Can't say if it is
a bug since there is no public NTFS specifications. But Windows people are
using such filesystems.
Regards,
David
dmesg:
--
On 07/21/13 23:14, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:46:08PM +0200, David Vasek wrote:
Hello,
I guess this one is something expected.
Nope, not expected.
A 4k-sector NTFS filesystem
can't be mounted as of 5.3/i386.
At least
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:45:47PM +0200, David Vasek wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
A 4k-sector NTFS filesystem
can't be mounted as of 5.3/i386.
At least one person is using a 4K-sector disk with NTFS partition(s)
without
20 matches
Mail list logo
