Conflicting C/H/S values
Could someone explain to me why the following HDD BIOS Geometries don't represent the values proposed by the drives. What am I missing? (snippets from boot -v) BIOS Geometries: 0:030c7f3f 0..780=781 cylinders, 0..127=128 heads, 1..63=63 sectors 1:03fefe3f 0..1022=1023 cylinders, 0..254=255 heads, 1..63=63 sectors 2:03fefe3f 0..1022=1023 cylinders, 0..254=255 heads, 1..63=63 sectors 3:026dfe3f 0..621=622 cylinders, 0..254=255 heads, 1..63=63 sectors 0 accounted for These don't correlate to the C/H/S values proposed by the drives: ad0: 8063MB (16514064 sectors), 16383 cyls, 16 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S ad1: 9787MB (20044080 sectors), 19885 cyls, 16 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S ad2: 3079MB (6306048 sectors), 6256 cyls, 16 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S ad3: 4892MB (10018890 sectors), 10602 cyls, 15 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S I'm running 5.0 as of mid-September, but I don't think that's the issue as Windows tends to exhibit the same behaviour. Regards, Trent. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: can't build custom kernel
First thing: read /usr/src/UPDATING. The proper procedure to build a kernel is in there. To save you some time: cd /usr/src make buildkernel KERNEL=your kernel name make installkernel KERNEL=your kernel name If the build still fails, then yes, you have a legitimate problem. At least when the normal (faster) config MYKERNEL;; cd ../../compile/MYKERNEL;make depend make make install fails. I also couldn't build a kernel the normal way, but the buildkernel cleaned something, so my preferred method worked again. Leif To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Free Pascal compiler version 1.0.2 beta for FreeBSD is officially out !
Hello, It is with great pleasure that the Free Pascal Development Team announces that Version 1.0.2 beta for FreeBSD 4.x + of the Free Pascal compiler has been officially released. This is a first beta version, commandline only, and not all packages are checked for FreeBSD compability. If you have FreeBSD available, try to test to compile your sources with FreeBSD, so we can lift this beta status soon. The Free Pascal Compiler/FreeBSD features: - A Turbo Pascal and Delphi compatible compiler for the Intel processor family, with some extensions to the Pascal and Object Pascal dialects, such as operator overloading. - An OS independent Run-Time Library, equivalent to the Turbo Pascal and Delphi Run-Time Libraries, not dependent on external libraries. - An API allowing for OS-Independent screen, keyboard and mouse management. (we need a lot of fixes and help here!) - Many units, interfacing to various API's: gtk, xforms, zlib, ncurses, sockets, X, mysql, postgresql, Interbase, paszlib, opengl, libgdb. - A Free Component Library, containing many base classes from the Delphi VCL. - More than 800 pages of documentation in Adobe PDF format, featuring + User's guide + Programmer's guide + Reference guide + reference guide for all units in the Run-Time Library + More than 440 complete example programs. (Other formats include plain text, HTML and PostScript) - Full sources to compiler, RTL, docs, packages. The distribution is available from ftp://ftp.freepascal.org in directory /pub/fpc/dist/freebsd-1.0.2 and below and from FTP mirrors. Marco, speaking for the whole Free Pascal Development Team Marco van de Voort ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Dynamic memory allocation from non-C code
This is probably a stupid question, but I have not been able to figure it out on my own: How do I dynamically allocate/free memory from programs that do not use the C library (e.g., assembly language programs)? I looked through syscalls.master but could not find anything resembling malloc in it. Is there a system call for this? Or do I have to just create a huge .data section and hope I made it large enough for all possible cases? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Adam -- A billion dollars in the bank, without the experience of carefreeness and charity, is a state of poverty. -- Deepak Chopra To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Dynamic memory allocation from non-C code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "G. Adam Stanislav" writes: This is probably a stupid question, but I have not been able to figure it out on my own: How do I dynamically allocate/free memory from programs that do not use the C library (e.g., assembly language programs)? If you don't link with the C library, you will need to use the sbrk(2)/brk(2) interface to extend your heap. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Dynamic memory allocation from non-C code
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 09:24:08PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: How do I dynamically allocate/free memory from programs that do not use the C library (e.g., assembly language programs)? If you don't link with the C library, you will need to use the sbrk(2)/brk(2) interface to extend your heap. Thanks! Adam -- "Let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may diet" -- Seen on a dining room wall... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
James Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe a correct and true statement is "FreeBSD is a direct decendant of Unix(TM). Based on the BSD sources" I don't think there's all that much left of the original BSD sources... at least not in the kernel. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Frederik Meerwaldt wrote: Hi! We need this information in order to determine which of these two OS to choose from to drive our website. Choose FreeBSD. It's faster. Also if some things don't work or work strangely or are poorly documented, finding sources for them is MUCH easier in FreeBSD. Linux Huh?! What's strange in FreeBSD? Bugs do happen. Also things are sometimes changed faster than being documented. Some things are just too timey or obvious for being documented but matter when you are trying to find out why your seemingly right script does not work as intended. -SB To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Sergey Babkin wrote: Frederik Meerwaldt wrote: Hi! We need this information in order to determine which of these two OS to choose from to drive our website. Choose FreeBSD. It's faster. Also if some things don't work or work strangely or are poorly documented, finding sources for them is MUCH easier in FreeBSD. Linux Huh?! What's strange in FreeBSD? Bugs do happen. Also things are sometimes changed faster than being documented. Some things are just too timey or obvious for being documented but matter when you are trying to find out why your seemingly right script does not work as intended. By the way, speaking of that, things in FreeBSD tend to be more synchronous with docs than in Linux. Also FreeBSD has much better backwards compatibility (though alas still not as good as commercial systems). In Linux the applications tend to break and require recompilation when the kernel is upgraded to the next second-digit version. -SB To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Hi all again, Speaking of this subject again, I have read in the archives that FreeBSD has a method of building the whole source tree using the "make world" command. Although this is a nice feature, but isn't too much risky to upgrade the whole system in one shot? What if something breaks down after you've recompiled? Your system would be dead. In Linux, on the contrary, there's no such feature and you'll need to take the server anyways to upgrade it, which seems as a good way of doing things. In the meantime, another backup server can take its position. I guess in this fashion, Linux is better than FreeBSD... or did I miss something here? /John Sergey Babkin wrote: By the way, speaking of that, things in FreeBSD tend to be more synchronous with docs than in Linux. Also FreeBSD has much better backwards compatibility (though alas still not as good as commercial systems). In Linux the applications tend to break and require recompilation when the kernel is upgraded to the next second-digit version. -SB -- Regards, phpStop.com http://www.phpstop.com/ stop here. start everywhere. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Speaking of this subject again, I have read in the archives that FreeBSD has a method of building the whole source tree using the "make world" command. Although this is a nice feature, but isn't too much risky to upgrade the whole system in one shot? Not anywhere near as "risky" as upgrading one component which n things depend on (without necessarily knowing this) and then having those n things start failing in mysterious and not-immediately-obvious ways. The make world target, on the other hand, knows the correct order to build things in so that interface or implementation changes are done in the correct order. be dead. In Linux, on the contrary, there's no such feature and you'll Which is why things frequently break in not-immediately-obvious ways over there when people upgrade things piece-meal and in the incorrect order. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:11:06AM +0200, stop here. start everywhere. wrote: Speaking of this subject again, I have read in the archives that FreeBSD has a method of building the whole source tree using the "make world" command. Although this is a nice feature, but isn't too much risky to upgrade the whole system in one shot? Theres always an element of risk when upgrading systems, but having it done in a automatic, managed fashion which takes care of doing everything in the correct order, makes sure no steps are missed etc, is a lot safer than trying to do it manually, piecemeal, by hand and hoping you get it right and all of the resultant bits work together. What if something breaks down after you've recompiled? Your system would be dead. In Linux, on the contrary, there's no such feature and you'll need to take the server anyways to upgrade it, which seems as a good way of doing things. In the meantime, another backup server can take its position. I guess in this fashion, Linux is better than FreeBSD... or did I miss something here? You can do the backup server thing on FreeBSD too if you like - nothing to stop you. In fact it's always sensible to have a contingency plan when doing upgrades of critical production systems because despite our best efforts, things may sometimes (rarely, if you do it right) not go according to plan. My experience of upgrading Linux vs FreeBSD systems is that make world beats it hands down, at least compared to an RPM-based linux system. Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Hi all again, Speaking of this subject again, I have read in the archives that FreeBSD has a method of building the whole source tree using the "make world" command. Although this is a nice feature, but isn't too much risky to upgrade the whole system in one shot? What if something breaks down after you've recompiled? Your system would be dead. In Linux, on the contrary, there's no such feature and you'll need to take the server anyways to upgrade it, which seems as a good way of doing things. In the meantime, another backup server can take its position. I guess in this fashion, Linux is better than FreeBSD... or did I miss something here? The make world is done in two steps: first is everything compiled to /var/obj, then everything is installed. Per definition production servers run freebsd-stable, which by definition are never broken :-). By definition freebsd-current are not for production and are allowed to be broken. You could compile on a testserver; when you are satisfied it works, you can install other servers from that via nfs. I have updated servers while they were online without problems. An OS shouldn't limit you from taking the risc of shooting yourself in the foot if you feel you have a legitimate reason to do so. Leif /John Sergey Babkin wrote: By the way, speaking of that, things in FreeBSD tend to be more synchronous with docs than in Linux. Also FreeBSD has much better backwards compatibility (though alas still not as good as commercial systems). In Linux the applications tend to break and require recompilation when the kernel is upgraded to the next second-digit version. -SB -- Regards, phpStop.com http://www.phpstop.com/ stop here. start everywhere. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:11:06AM +0200, stop here. start everywhere. wrote: Hi all again, Speaking of this subject again, I have read in the archives that FreeBSD has a method of building the whole source tree using the "make world" command. Although this is a nice feature, but isn't too much risky to upgrade the whole system in one shot? Actually, FreeBSD has broken it down into four steps now: make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel make installworld It is crucial that you know what you are doing before you attempt this! It generally isn't necessary to build the world when you are running a release version of FreeBSD, and if you are just configuring a custom kernel (i.e. not upgrading it), then you should use the normal method of compiling a kernel (see the handbook section on this topic at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/kernelconfig.html). The buildworld/ buildkernel/installkernel/installworld procedures are really for upgrading your system from sources, and if you are going to attempt to do this, you *must* read the UPDATING file in your source directory (typically in /usr/src) for special instructions that might be needed for the particular version transition that you will be making. You should also be subscribed to the mailing list that discusses the version to which you will be upgrading for a good week before you attempt the upgrade. What if something breaks down after you've recompiled? Your system would be dead. In Linux, on the contrary, there's no such feature and you'll need to take the server anyways to upgrade it, which seems as a good way of doing things. In the meantime, another backup server can take its position. I guess in this fashion, Linux is better than FreeBSD... or did I miss something here? As with any upgrade (on Linux as well), you run the risk of running into any bugs that may exist in the new version. If the problem is with the kernel, you can back out by booting the old kernel. It's a good idea to keep around a copy of a known good kernel just for this reason. There are three branches of FreeBSD, the release branch, the stable branch, and the current branch. There are different reasons for running each, and as I mentioned before, there is a mailing list for stable and current, and you should be subscribed to it if you are going to be running anything other than release. Cheers, -brian /John Sergey Babkin wrote: By the way, speaking of that, things in FreeBSD tend to be more synchronous with docs than in Linux. Also FreeBSD has much better backwards compatibility (though alas still not as good as commercial systems). In Linux the applications tend to break and require recompilation when the kernel is upgraded to the next second-digit version. -SB -- Regards, phpStop.com http://www.phpstop.com/ stop here. start everywhere. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- Brian O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Boot off USB SanDisk?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Miller writes: : SanDisk makes a IDE-like flash card one could plug into a $30 USB : flashcard reader. : : Would FreeBSD have any idea how to boot off such a beast? Alternatively, : anyone know of an ISA/PCI adapter with enough bios on it to boot off a : similar flash? You can use a IDE - CF adapter to boot off this device. You can't boot it off via the USB device however. I've been booting FreeBSD off this beast since about 3.2R. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: can't build custom kernel
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Len Conrad writes: : First thing: read /usr/src/UPDATING. : : but I'm not UPDATING, I've installed to virgin disk from 4.1.1 iso-image. The problem is that you need to add the ISA compat shims: options COMPAT_OLDISA # compatability shims for lnc, le Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Routing issue with cable modem
On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 06:35:02PM -0400, Marko Ruban wrote: Joel said HTML was badly formatted, so I'm resubmitting in plain text. Thanks :) While the HTML in that message was particularly difficult for humans to parse, in genersl sending mail formatted in HTML is frowned upon since many of us (perhaps most of us) don't use mailers that can render HTML. Such messages are often ignored. Thanks for re-sending it as plain text. :) -brian -- Brian O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
DMA in drivers?
I am in the process of writing a PCI driver for an encryption card. The specifications state that the DMA Destination Address, DMA Dest. Length, DMA Source Addr, and DMA Source Length should be loaded into registers in the card. Part of the info states: "This register is used to establish the PCI address for data moving from the the Host Computer Memory to the card. It consists of a 30 bit counter with the low-order 2 bits hardwired as zeros. The address stored may be any nonzero byte length that is a multiple of 8, since 8 bytes are required to make up a DES encryption block. The Source Address Register is continually updated during the transfer process and will always be pointing to the next unwritten location." What do I need to do to get a memory address for the source and destination data for the DMA transfers? It sounds as if these memory addresses must have the last three bits zeros, will this happen automatically? Right now I am stuck on how this DMA stuff is working and any help would be appreciated. Oh yeah, I am targeting this driver for a FreeBSD 3.x system. Thanks, Chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
