Re: Radeon VE 7000 VGA card support under xfree86 4.3.0
- Original Message - From: "nobody nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:01 AM Subject: Radeon VE 7000 VGA card support under xfree86 4.3.0 > Hello, > > Thanks for the advices of the mailing group. I finally figure out the > problem of my previous mail concerning the X under XFree86 4.3.0 with > Freebsd-5.1 beta 2. I use the same VGA card with the crt mon and everything > work ok without extra work for the X-config file. The problem may be the > refresh rate of the LCD is too slow for the VGA card to pick up. I would > like to know if there exists any method that would fix the problem. Thanks > for your effort. > > Clarence > You'll likely need to hard-code the LCD's refresh rate in the config file. Involves manual hacking. Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ?
Blue Lightning was an i486 core in a i386SX/DX compatible package (usually SX). AMD's i386DX's predate Blue Lightning by about 5 years. Adam - Original Message - From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bob Bishop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Any ideas why we can't even boot a i386 ? > Bob Bishop wrote: > > At 21:06 28/2/03, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > >[...] We have some a few embedded systems coming back > > >from the field soon and I plan on trying some tests on them (they are > > >amd 386, so might not be good for you). [etc] > > > > IIRC AMD had a mask deal with Intel for the 386, so should be OK. > > Are you sure that AMD did not use the IBM "Blue Lightening" > core? > > I'm pretty sure that there are a huge number of embedded controllers > that used the Intel 386GX macrocell, though... > > -- Terry > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Preferred Gigabit interfaces for -CURRENT
Likely part of the performance issue was due to the Chipset of the motherboard. Your typical 32bit 33MHz PCI bus is going to be marginal for routing GigE traffic, just due to bus bandwidth limitations, but it'll handle multiple 100BaseTX cards just fine. While a higher-end setup like a Serverworks chipset, with a 64bit, 66MHz bus will handle the traffic better. OF course, if you really want good routing performance on a*BSD platform, you should be looking at a Juniper M20 or M40. Adam - Original Message - From: "Wes Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Preferred Gigabit interfaces for -CURRENT > On Friday 07 February 2003 01:25, David Gilbert wrote: > > We're about to make the switch from 100M interfaces to GigE interfaces > > for our transit routers ... which are FreeBSD-5.0 based SMP (Athlon) > > boxes. Our current favorite card is the intel i82559-based fxp > > cards. They handle the load best on our testing of 100M cards. > > Remember that our load is large and small packets and that hardware > > checksums are not a win (although hardware vlans are). > > > > So... I need to know what GigE chipsets I should test. I recently > > tested Intel GigE cards ... with dismal results... less than half the > > packets-per-second on the (otherwise) same hardware. Small packets > > (as in DOS attacks) are a real concern here. > > Wow, this wasn't my experience at all. At my previous employer we > used Intel EEPro 1000 Server cards with the em(4) driver on FreeBSD > 4.5 with nary a hitch and excellent performance. This was on > ServerWorks chipset motherboards with P-III and P4 processors. > > > I believe that someone here recomended Tigon III based cards ... but I > > was recently looking through 5.0-RELEASE's hardware notes and couldn't > > find any mention of Tigon III. > > The follow-on to the Tigon II is the Broadcom BCM570x supported by > the bge(4) driver in FreeBSD. This is not what you want. They're > certainly cheap to test with, though; the Netgear GA302T sells for > under $40 at a few online retailers. > > -- > > Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? > > Wes Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: 5.0 SMP status.
I would recomend 4.7 for a production machine. Until 5.0 is -STABLE I wouldn't use it for anything as mission-critical as a Mail server. Adam - Original Message - From: "Forrest W. Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 12:25 AM Subject: 5.0 SMP status. > > I've got a Intel-motherboard-based SMP box I'm going to be using as a > fairly heavily loaded mail server. I've currently got 4-Stable on it, but > for various reasons I need to blow the installation away and start over. > > I'm currently wavering between putting 4.x or 5.x on it. I'd like to put > 5.x on it since I will have some time (month or so) to stabilize it before > it really goes into production. On the other hand, I'm seeing notes in > various that indicate that the SMP subsystem might not be nearly stable > enough for anything even resembling production work. > > So I guess my question really is something along the lines of "What is the > consensus on the stablility of 5.x in an SMP environment?" or "Other than > the newness and lack of real world experience with 5.x is there any other > compelling reasons why I shouldn't be putting 5.x on this box?" > > - Forrest W. Christian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) AC7DE > -- > The Innovation Machine Ltd. P.O. Box 5749 > http://www.imach.com/Helena, MT 59604 > Home of PacketFlux Technologies and BackupDNS.com (406)-442-6648 > -- > Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/ > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: only root can startx
Your permissions for /var/log are wrong. --Adam - Original Message - From: "Charlie ROOT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:30 PM Subject: only root can startx > I am working the kinks out of an upgrade from 4.7 to 5.0-R. So far I see a > problem starting X. first off xinit does not seem to work. Was that > removed in 5.0? Second, oly root can startx. When I try as a regular user, > I get the message: 'Fatal server error connot open log file > /var/log/XFree86.0.log' > > what's going on here? > > thanks, > > Kirk > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
