RE: Missing support in FreeBSD for large file sizes?
Dear All, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5009496.html?tag=lh quote Microsoft adjusted its licensing terms for the Maxtor system, Wilkins noted. Unlike general-purpose servers, a Maxtor machine doesn't require that customers pay for client access licenses--the fees often required for computers that use the server. "That's the first time Microsoft has done this," Wilkins said. /quote This is a victory for the Open Source community, not a defeat. Microsoft is willing to bleed for real big customers, because they realize that Maxtor had a choice. At some point in the future Microsoft is going to be willing to bleed for little customers also. Kees Jan You are only young once, but you can stay immature all your life. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Missing support in FreeBSD for large file sizes?
Aloha! Still, wouldn't it be prudent if someone from the project talked to Maxtor and got some feedback on this? They obviously (or should we assume conspiracy?) had some real technical issues with FreeBSD, and also had problems dealing with them properly. Clarification on this should (could) be quite good feedback. -- Cheers! Joachim - Alltid i harmonisk svngning --- FairLight -- FairLight -- FairLight -- FairLight --- Joachim Strmbergson ASIC SoC designer, nice to CUTE animals Phone: +46(0)31 - 27 98 47Web: http://www.ludd.luth.se/~watchman --- Spamfodder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Missing support in FreeBSD for large file sizes?
That could be, assuming that we had any idea just who inside of Maxstor to discuss it with. Do you have any names and email addresses? - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
anybody pls help im a newbie
i want to protect my freebsd box from the outside. anyone who can help? any sample configs about ipfw or ipf. which do u guys prefer of the two? my box is running: named apache qmail popper pls help.. thanks jett
Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: Re: Machines are getting too damn fast :throughput. For example, on the PIII-850 (116MHz FSB and SDRAM, its :overclocked) here on my desk with 256KB L2 cache: : :dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=512k count=4000 :4000+0 records in :4000+0 records out :2097152000 bytes transferred in 8.229456 secs (254834825 bytes/sec) : :dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=128k count=16000 :16000+0 records in :16000+0 records out :2097152000 bytes transferred in 1.204001 secs (1741819224 bytes/sec) : :Now THAT is a significant difference. :-) Interesting. I get very different results with the 1.3 GHz P4. The best I seem to get is 1.4 GBytes/sec. I'm not sure what the L2 cache is on the box, but it's definitely a consumer model. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=512k count=4000 2097152000 bytes transferred in 2.363903 secs (887156520 bytes/sec) dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=128k count=16000 2097152000 bytes transferred in 1.471046 secs (1425619621 bytes/sec) If I use lower block sizes the syscall overhead blows up the performance (it gets lower rather then higher). So I figure I don't have as much L2 as on your system. The P4 has other issues when you don't do straight line code. Any branch mis-predictions cost a minimum of 20 cycles due to the pipeline plus whatever cache/fetch/decode hits you may get on the actual target. This may be why you get lower values than a PIII or Athelon. (Both have significantly lower penalty for branch mis-prediction) -- Michael Sinz Worldgate Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] A master's secrets are only as good as the master's ability to explain them to others. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Missing support in FreeBSD for large file sizes?
Hola! Jordan Hubbard wrote: That could be, assuming that we had any idea just who inside of Maxstor to discuss it with. Do you have any names and email addresses? Not personally, but taken from the article about this issue, one person that obviously knows about this is Steve Wilkins, Maxtor's product marketing director. He should be able to reach through the Maxtor switchboard. Contact information from the Maxtor website: ( http://www.maxtor.com/Maxtorhome.htm?httpwww.maxtor.com/contactUs/default.htm ) Maxtor Corporation 510 Cottonwood Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 USA Telephone: (408)432-1700 Fax: (408)432-4510 There is a press release about the MS deal (which meant kicking out FreeBSD): http://www.maxtor.com/press/2001/nr200103052.html In the press release a few other names appear: * Victor Jipson, president of the Network Systems Group at Maxtor * Mike Cannon, president and CEO of Maxtor. These should also (in some way) be able to reach through the main switchboard (or door for those in the area). The product itself, MaxAttach, have some contact information for technical support and so on: http://www.maxtor.com/Maxtorhome.htm?httpwww.maxtor.com/contactUs/technicalSupport_MaxAttach.htm Also, I went through their Careers pages to see if I could find any names in connection with job opportunities related to OS development in the NAS-products. Unfortunately, all contact information are directed to the HR department. One (possibly) interesting thing to note is that they have lots of job opportunities for SW development deirected at MS specific things. I'm not sure what the conclusion might be. Either (a) they are changing direction and need a whole new staff. Or, (b) they have been working towards MS-centric systems for a long time. (Or (c) they need people, and these are good buzzwords to ask about). Anyway, hopefully they are positive in letting us know a bit more about why and what concerning what they perceived as problematic about FreeBSD. Was it only technical or was it lack of support? I'm also curious to in what ways they tried to get help with their problems. Personally, I'm not even close to be in Milpitas, and don't see myself as a proper representative for FreeBSD, so I feel I'm not the one to actually make the contact with Maxtor. -- Cheers! Joachim - Alltid i harmonisk svngning --- FairLight -- FairLight -- FairLight -- FairLight --- Joachim Strmbergson ASIC SoC designer, nice to CUTE animals Phone: +46(0)31 - 27 98 47Web: http://www.ludd.luth.se/~watchman --- Spamfodder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Log file analysis
I have long log files from multi-threaded multi-program simulations that output this sort of thing: BUS:16:15:35.212525 vme:082a4000 \ irqn: opening shared memory object /var/tmp/vmedir/irqn.bus BUS:16:15:35.221792 vme:082a4000 \ irqn: Master opening request FIFO blocking. BUS:16:15:37.193684 foo:082a4000 \ irqn: opening /var/tmp/vmedir/irqn.bus BUS:16:15:37.194125 foo:082a4000 \ irqn: Opening /var/tmp/vmedir/irqn.request write-only... BUS:16:15:37.194318 vme:082a4000 \ irqn: blocking for request BUS:16:15:37.194524 foo:082a4000 \ irqn: creating reply fifo /var/tmp/vmedir/irqn74193.74181.reply BUS:16:15:37.194771 foo:082a4000 \ irqn: writing request #0 "Attach" (with handshake, sem 0x830f5e0 pSem 0xbfbfe3dc) to request FIFO. BUS:16:15:37.195009 vme:082a4000 \ irqn: received request #0 (with handshake) "Attach" from client foo I'd like to be able to graphically browse these logs so that unusual sequences jump out. There are time stamps, programs, thread ids, etc, in the fields and I want to plot them along the time axis with different colors, different programs at different heights, etc. I did a little searching for log file analysis, etc, but only see web site oriented utilities. I'll start rolling my own using a tk canvas, but does anyone know of a good starting point tool? Peter -- Peter Dufault ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: anybody pls help im a newbie
[Moved from -hackers to -questions, Followup is set.] jett tayer schrieb: i want to protect my freebsd box from the outside. anyone who can help? any sample configs about ipfw or ipf. which do u guys prefer of the two? my box is running: named apache qmail popper You may use /stand/sysinstall during installation to enable a firewall with open, medium, or secure policy. If you already installed FreeBSD, have a look at /etc/defaults/rc.conf. It lists the following settings: ---snip--- firewall_enable="NO"# Set to YES to enable firewall functionality firewall_script="/etc/rc.firewall" # Which script to run to set up the firewall firewall_type="UNKNOWN" # Firewall type (see /etc/rc.firewall) firewall_quiet="NO" # Set to YES to suppress rule display firewall_logging="NO" # Set to YES to enable events logging firewall_flags="" # Flags passed to ipfw when type is a file ---/snip--- the above mentioned rc.firewall script lists ---snip--- # Define the firewall type in /etc/rc.conf. Valid values are: # open - will allow anyone in # client - will try to protect just this machine # simple - will try to protect a whole network # closed - totally disables IP services except via lo0 interface # UNKNOWN - disables the loading of firewall rules. # filename - will load the rules in the given filename (full path required) # # For ``client'' and ``simple'' the entries below should be customized # appropriately. # # If you don't know enough about packet filtering, we suggest that you # take time to read this book: # # Building Internet Firewalls # Brent Chapman and Elizabeth Zwicky # # O'Reilly Associates, Inc # ISBN 1-56592-124-0 # http://www.ora.com/ ---/snip--- client and simple are default firewalls. For everything else you'll need to read the above mentioned book (~850p.) or to hire an expert, cause there is no such thing than an universal firewall. HTH -Christoph Sold To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
Matt Dillon writes: I modified my original C program again, this time to simply read the data from memory given a block size in kilobytes as an argument. I had to throw in a little __asm to do it right, but here are my results. It shows about 3.2 GBytes/sec from the L2 (well, insofar as my 3-instruction loop goes), and about 1.4 GBytes/sec from main memory. NOTE: cc x.c -O2 -o x ./x 4 3124.96 MBytes/sec (read) ... ./x 1024 1397.90 MBytes/sec (read) In contrast I get 1052.50 MBytes/sec on the Dell 2400 from the L2, and 444 MBytes/sec from main memory. FWIW: 1.2GHz Athlon, VIA Apollo KT133 chipset, Asus A7V motherboard, (PC133 ECC Registered Dimms) ./x 4 2393.70 MBytes/sec (read) ./x 8 2398.19 MBytes/sec (read) ... ./x 1024 627.32 MBytes/sec (read) And a Dual 933MHz PIII SuperMicro 370DER Serverworks HE-SL Chipset (2-way interleaved PC133 ECC Registered DIMMS) ./x 4 1853.54 MBytes/sec (read) ./x 1024 526.19 MBytes/sec (read) There's something diabolic about your previous bw test, though. I think it only hits one bank of interleaved ram. On the 370DER it gets only 167MB/sec. Every other bw test I've run on the box shows copy perf at around 260MB/sec (Hbench, lmbench). I see the same problem on a PE4400 (also 2-way interleaved); it shows copy perf as 111MB/sec. Every other test has it at 230MB/sec. The Athlon copies at 174MB/sec, which is right about what lmbench, hbench, etc, and your test show. How's your P4 for floating point? Is real-life perf as good as the specbench numbers would indicate, or do you need a better compiler than GCC to get any benefit from it? My wife is a statistician, and she runs some really fp intensive workloads. This Athlon is faster than the Serverworks box and (barely) faster than a year-old Alpha UP1000 for her code. Drew -- Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin Duke University Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computer Science Phone: (919) 660-6590 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Gallatin writes: FWIW: 1.2GHz Athlon, VIA Apollo KT133 chipset, Asus A7V motherboard, (PC133 ECC Registered Dimms) Note that the KT does *NOT* support ECC. A few places have claimed it does, but the VIA chipset spec says it doesn't. The KV or KX does (I forget the model #), but the KT is secretly doing no error correcting at all. I got burned on this with an ABit VP6, which proclaims loudly that it supports ECC, but doesn't actually *do* any. -s To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
:How's your P4 for floating point? Is real-life perf as good as the :specbench numbers would indicate, or do you need a better compiler :than GCC to get any benefit from it? My wife is a statistician, and :she runs some really fp intensive workloads. This Athlon is faster :than the Serverworks box and (barely) faster than a year-old Alpha :UP1000 for her code. : :Drew : :-- :Andrew Gallatin, Sr Systems Programmer http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gallatin My understanding is that Intel focused on FP performance in the P4, and that it is very, very good at it. I dunno how to test it though. GCC generally does not produce very good code, but I would expect that it would get reasonably close in regards to FP because Intel's FP instruction set is a good fit with it. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Machines are getting too damn fast
From: Matt Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] My understanding is that Intel focused on FP performance in the P4, and that it is very, very good at it. I dunno how to test it though. GCC generally does not produce very good code, but I would expect that it would get reasonably close in regards to FP because Intel's FP instruction set is a good fit with it. Which begs the question I've tried to ask a number of times in different forums. Who's working on P4 optimizations and code generation for the P4? Sure, i386 code will run but the benchmarks seem to indicate that peak performance is heavily dependent on a good optimizing compiler. A query to the gcc mailing list returned no responses. Charles To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: My understanding is that Intel focused on FP performance in the P4, and that it is very, very good at it. I dunno how to test it though. From the benchmarks tom's hardware / others did, I got the impression that SSE2 performance is awesome, but x87 FPU operations aren't really improved, so the Athlon still has the advantage there. GCC generally does not produce very good code, but I would expect that it would get reasonably close in regards to FP because Intel's FP instruction set is a good fit with it. -Matt I'm quite confused about Intel's strategy wrt that compiler. Every time someone does a benchmark showing Intel's newest processor getting beat at something, they send code compiled with it to the benchmarker. However, they haven't even attempted to make it a popular compiler. Everything I've seen/heard indicates that msvc and gcc are all that gets really used on x86. My only guess is that part of the company wants to have everyone use it to get optimal performance out of intel processors, while the other half wants people to be forced to buy faster processors. This would explain why it's still sold, but in such a way that nobody will really buy it. (The reason I mention this is because someone was talking about trying to compile the kernel with sun's CC. Maybe rigging intel's compiler to do so would be fruitful.) Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:56:46 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Matt Dillon writes:
I modified my original C program again, this time to simply read
the data from memory given a block size in kilobytes as an argument.
I had to throw in a little __asm to do it right, but here are my results.
It shows about 3.2 GBytes/sec from the L2 (well, insofar as my
3-instruction loop goes), and about 1.4 GBytes/sec from main memory.
NOTE: cc x.c -O2 -o x
./x 4
3124.96 MBytes/sec (read)
...
./x 1024
1397.90 MBytes/sec (read)
In contrast I get 1052.50 MBytes/sec on the Dell 2400 from the L2,
and 444 MBytes/sec from main memory.
FWIW: 1.2GHz Athlon, VIA Apollo KT133 chipset, Asus A7V motherboard,
(PC133 ECC Registered Dimms)
./x 4
2393.70 MBytes/sec (read)
./x 8
2398.19 MBytes/sec (read)
...
./x 1024
627.32 MBytes/sec (read)
And a Dual 933MHz PIII SuperMicro 370DER Serverworks HE-SL Chipset
(2-way interleaved PC133 ECC Registered DIMMS)
./x 4
1853.54 MBytes/sec (read)
./x 1024
526.19 MBytes/sec (read)
Dell Precision 420 (i840 chipset) with a single PIII 800 and probably one
RIMM, unknown speed:
{rivendell:/usr/home/ken/src:76:0} ./memspeed 4
1049.51 MBytes/sec (read)
{rivendell:/usr/home/ken/src:77:0} ./memspeed 1024
378.41 MBytes/sec (read)
The above machine may not have been completely idle, it seems a little
slow.
Dual 1GHz PIII SuperMicro 370DE6 Serverworks HE-SL chipset, 4x256MB PC133
ECC Registered DIMMs:
{gondolin:/usr/home/ken/src:51:0} ./memspeed 4
1985.95 MBytes/sec (read)
{gondolin:/usr/home/ken/src:52:0} ./memspeed 1024
516.62 MBytes/sec (read)
There's something diabolic about your previous bw test, though. I
think it only hits one bank of interleaved ram. On the 370DER it gets
only 167MB/sec. Every other bw test I've run on the box shows copy
perf at around 260MB/sec (Hbench, lmbench). I see the same problem on
a PE4400 (also 2-way interleaved); it shows copy perf as 111MB/sec.
Every other test has it at 230MB/sec.
The previous test showed about 270MB/sec on my Serverworks box:
{gondolin:/usr/home/ken/src:53:0} ./memory_speed
269.23 MBytes/sec (copy)
Ken
--
Kenneth Merry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: RE: Machines are getting too damn fast
:Which begs the question I've tried to ask a number of times in different :forums. Who's working on P4 optimizations and code generation for the P4? I'd be happy if GCC -O2 just worked without introducing bugs. I want to be able to compile the kernel with it again. -Matt :Sure, i386 code will run but the benchmarks seem to indicate that peak :performance is heavily dependent on a good optimizing compiler. : :A query to the gcc mailing list returned no responses. : :Charles To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: anybody pls help im a newbie
1. Please send messages like this to questions, not to hackers. The hackers mailing list is for development discussions, not QA. Thanks. 2. See http://www.daemonnews.org/200103/firewall.html and similar articles on the net for this kind of information. There are many beginner's articles on firewalls and FreeBSD if you just do a little altavista (or your favorite search engine) searching. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Machines are getting too damn fast
This explained in great detail exactly why people are seeing the performance
they are from the P4 etc. The author knows his stuff.
http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm
Brandon
:-Original Message-
:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kenneth D. Merry
:Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:08 PM
:To: Andrew Gallatin
:Cc: Matt Dillon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Subject: Re: Machines are getting too damn fast
:
:
:On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:56:46 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
: Matt Dillon writes:
:
: I modified my original C program again, this time to simply read
: the data from memory given a block size in kilobytes as
:an argument.
: I had to throw in a little __asm to do it right, but here
:are my results.
: It shows about 3.2 GBytes/sec from the L2 (well, insofar as my
: 3-instruction loop goes), and about 1.4 GBytes/sec from
:main memory.
:
:
: NOTE: cc x.c -O2 -o x
:
: ./x 4
: 3124.96 MBytes/sec (read)
: ...
: ./x 1024
: 1397.90 MBytes/sec (read)
:
: In contrast I get 1052.50 MBytes/sec on the Dell 2400 from the L2,
: and 444 MBytes/sec from main memory.
:
:
: FWIW: 1.2GHz Athlon, VIA Apollo KT133 chipset, Asus A7V motherboard,
: (PC133 ECC Registered Dimms)
:
: ./x 4
: 2393.70 MBytes/sec (read)
: ./x 8
: 2398.19 MBytes/sec (read)
: ...
: ./x 1024
: 627.32 MBytes/sec (read)
:
:
: And a Dual 933MHz PIII SuperMicro 370DER Serverworks HE-SL Chipset
: (2-way interleaved PC133 ECC Registered DIMMS)
:
: ./x 4
: 1853.54 MBytes/sec (read)
: ./x 1024
: 526.19 MBytes/sec (read)
:
:Dell Precision 420 (i840 chipset) with a single PIII 800 and probably one
:RIMM, unknown speed:
:
:{rivendell:/usr/home/ken/src:76:0} ./memspeed 4
:1049.51 MBytes/sec (read)
:{rivendell:/usr/home/ken/src:77:0} ./memspeed 1024
:378.41 MBytes/sec (read)
:
:The above machine may not have been completely idle, it seems a little
:slow.
:
:Dual 1GHz PIII SuperMicro 370DE6 Serverworks HE-SL chipset, 4x256MB PC133
:ECC Registered DIMMs:
:
:{gondolin:/usr/home/ken/src:51:0} ./memspeed 4
:1985.95 MBytes/sec (read)
:{gondolin:/usr/home/ken/src:52:0} ./memspeed 1024
:516.62 MBytes/sec (read)
:
: There's something diabolic about your previous bw test, though. I
: think it only hits one bank of interleaved ram. On the 370DER it gets
: only 167MB/sec. Every other bw test I've run on the box shows copy
: perf at around 260MB/sec (Hbench, lmbench). I see the same problem on
: a PE4400 (also 2-way interleaved); it shows copy perf as 111MB/sec.
: Every other test has it at 230MB/sec.
:
:The previous test showed about 270MB/sec on my Serverworks box:
:
:{gondolin:/usr/home/ken/src:53:0} ./memory_speed
:269.23 MBytes/sec (copy)
:
:Ken
:--
:Kenneth Merry
:[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: RE: Machines are getting too damn fast
: :This explained in great detail exactly why people are seeing the performance :they are from the P4 etc. The author knows his stuff. : :http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm : :Brandon Heh heh. You can practically see the sweat popping off his face while reading his article. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: RE: Machines are getting too damn fast
Noted. Is there a gcc PR associated with this? http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl A GNATS searc for "freebsd kernel" didn't return anything. -Charles -Original Message- From: Matt Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:44 AM To: Charles Randall Cc: Andrew Gallatin; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: Machines are getting too damn fast :Which begs the question I've tried to ask a number of times in different :forums. Who's working on P4 optimizations and code generation for the P4? I'd be happy if GCC -O2 just worked without introducing bugs. I want to be able to compile the kernel with it again. -Matt :Sure, i386 code will run but the benchmarks seem to indicate that peak :performance is heavily dependent on a good optimizing compiler. : :A query to the gcc mailing list returned no responses. : :Charles To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
PCMCIA Network Adapter problems
Dear Sir, I just started using Free-BSD, and am having some problems making it see my network adapter on my laptop. It sees the controller fine, just not the card itself. The card I am attempting to use is a 3Com Megahertz 10/100Mb Lan + 56K modem card, model number 3CCFEM656B. Any help at all would be greatly appriciated, and I appologize for the inconvenience. Sincerly, Jason
Re: PCMCIA Network Adapter problems
[Please don't send HTML e-mail. Also, don't send questions like this to -hackers.] On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 02:55:53PM -0800, Louis Thompson wrote: I just started using Free-BSD, and am having some problems making it see my network adapter on my laptop. It sees the controller fine, just not the card itself. The card I am attempting to use is a 3Com Megahertz 10/100Mb Lan + 56K modem card, model number 3CCFEM656B. Any help at all would be greatly appriciated, and I appologize for the inconvenience. This card is a cardbus card and thus is not supported in FreeBSD 4.x. The Ethernet side probably works in -current, but now is probably not the time to venture into -current for the first time unless you have a very high pain threshold. The 56K modem is unlikely to work anytime soon since it's most likely a WinModem. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 PGP signature
Help!!! 2nd HD gone
Howdy, I hadn't booted FreeBSD 3.4 for many months but had mounted several partitions on /dev/wd2s* from /etc/fstab. Last week I couldn't get a clean boot 'til I took all references to /dev/wd2s* out of /etc/fstab. Having done that I now see: fbsd:~ mount -t ext2fs /dev/wd2s1 /rh6 ext2fs: /dev/wd2s1: Device not configured fbsd:~ fdisk /dev/wd2.fdisk: cannot open disk /dev/wd2: Device not configured fbsd:~ disklabel /dev/wd2 disklabel: /dev/wd2: Device not configured fbsd:~ ls -l /dev/wd2s* brw-r- 1 root operator0, 0x00020012 Mar 20 2000 /dev/wd2s1 ... /dev/wd2s2 through /dev/wd2s8 nearly identical brw-r- 1 root operator0, 0x000a0012 Apr 20 2000 /dev/wd2s9 from /var/log/dmesg.today: this is the way it was. wdc0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7 irq 14 on isa wdc0: unit 0 (wd0): WDC AC24300L wd0:4112MB (8421840 sectors), 8912 cyls, 15 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S wdc1 at 0x170-0x177 irq 15 on isa wdc1: unit 0 (wd2): WDC AC26400R wd2: 6149MB (12594960 sectors), 13328 cyls, 15 heads, 63 S/T, 512 B/S from /var/log/messages: May 23 18:15:19 /kernel: wdc1 at 0x170-0x177 irq 15 on isa May 23 18:15:19 /kernel: wdc1: unit 0 (wd2): WDC AC26400R Feb 11 16:27:36 /kernel: wdc1 not found at 0x170 This makes me think the kernal is not seeing the controller at boot. wd2 aka D: aka /dev/hdc is visible from dos and I'm writing this from Slackware 7.0 mounted on /dev/hdc8. This from Slackware's /var/log/messages: Feb 15 09:20:15 playground kernel: hda: WDC AC24300L, 4112MB w/256kB Cache, CHS=524/255/63, UDMA Feb 15 09:20:15 playground kernel: hdc: WDC AC26400R, 6149MB w/512kB Cache, CHS=13328/15/63, (U)DMA I'm stumped. All suggestions welcome. TIA, MiKe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Missing support in FreeBSD for large file sizes?
David Xu wrote: Hello sthaug, Tuesday, March 06, 2001, 1:24:24 AM, you wrote: snn According to the "Maxtor picks Windows, dumps open source" article at snn http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5009496.html?tag=lh snn FreeBSD "did not support large file sizes, Macintosh and newer Novell snn file systems, or backup and management software from companies such as snn OpenView, Tivoli and Microsoft". snn Now I can understand what they say about missing Tivoli support - we're snn using Tivoli backup here ourselves, and the SCO ADSM/TSM client that we snn currently use to backup FreeBSD is passable, but nothing more. A native snn FreeBSD client would be much preferable. snn What I can't understand is the reference to missing support for large snn file sizes - as far as I know, that's one of FreeBSD's strengths! Anybod y snn care to guess what they mean here? snn Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] snn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] snn with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message this is a stupid decision, let they go. AFAIK, Windows 2000 does not support dump file system to tape or other medias. I was a Windows NT system manager, I know I don't believe all backup softwares for Windows NT, simply because Windows NT system can not be fully backuped. FreeBSD can do, it's strength of Unix File System. There is a lot more to it than technical merit. Also consider the strings that M$ is pulling over the X-box. If Maxtor wanted to get Maxtor or Quantum drives in it, you can bet that Microsoft demanded concessions... You could pretty safely bet your last dollar that this was a management decision, not a technical one. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
