Re: Let 3.x die ASAP?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Steve O'Hara-Smith" writes: : to be at least as good as 2.x'. ... if not better... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: 4.0 stable upgrade trouble
For anyone who'd like to know, I was able to successfully upgrade to 4.0-RELEASE by downloading the source tarballs, and unpacking them in my /usr/src directory. I cleared it out of the old 3.4 sources beforehand, and found that you must first compile a 4.0 kernel and reboot before attempting a make world. After you reboot, you can drop in to single-user (for safety), and run yoyur make world. Since it only installs the new gcc at the end, you may want to re-make world a second time, or simply make and install gcc, etc. first. --cokane Kris Kennaway had the audacity to say: > You should have read the UPDATING file before attempting this. It explains > the hoops you need to jump through. I don't know whether you can easily > recover from where you are now, it might be best to restore the system > directories from a backup and start again. > > Kris > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Dale Robson wrote: > > > To anyone who can help, > > I've been trying to upgrade from 3.3 stable to 4.0 stable and I've been > > having trouble getting it to work. I have run make buildworld and that > > worked. Then during make installworld I got an error so that only half > > the files were installed. > > The trouble that I now have is that the newly upgraded 'make' links > > with the old versions of several libraries. When I try to run make it > > says: "Bad sytem call". Is there a way to fix make without being able > > to use make? I've made a couple attempts at running a staticly linked > > version on make compiled on other boxes but they all argue about the > > ".include " lines in the make files. Thank you for any > > help. > > > > Dale Robson > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > > > > In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. > -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Atapi CDRW
Hi, I'm using freebsd 3.4-RELEASE with CREATIVE CD-RW RW4224E: /kernel: wdc1: unit 0 (atapi): , removable, accel, dma, iordis /kernel: acd0: drive speed 4125KB/sec, 1860KB cache /kernel: acd0: supported read types: CD-R, CD-RW, CD-DA, packet track /kernel: acd0: supported write types: CD-R, CD-RW, test write /kernel: acd0: Audio: play, 255 volume levels /kernel: acd0: Mechanism: ejectable tray /kernel: acd0: Medium: no/blank disc inside, unlocked, lock protected I was burning my cds using wormcontrol, it was working fine. But now I've changed to 4.0-RELEASE and I'm having some problems. Some times the CDRW is detected this way: /kernel: ata1-master: timeout waiting for command=ef s=00 e=00 /kernel: acd0: CD-RW at ata1-master using BIOSPIO some times this way: /kernel: acd0: CD-RW at ata1-master using PIO4 And I'm losting several cds using burncd command, my drive freeze and only work after power cicle. I get this mesage when the CDRW freeze: /kernel: acd0: READ_TOC - ILLEGAL REQUEST asc=24 ascq=00 error=00 /kernel: acd0: WRITE_BIG - HARDWARE ERROR asc=09 ascq=01 error=00 /kernel: acd0: REQUEST_SENSE command timeout - resetting /kernel: ata1: resetting devices .. device dissapeared! 1 ata1-master: timeout waiting to give command=ef s=90 e=20 /kernel: done /kernel: ata1-master: timeout waiting to give command=a0 s=90 e=20 /kernel: acd0: failure to send ATAPI packet command /kernel: acd0: failure to execute ATAPI packet command Is this problem solved in freebsd 4.0-STABLE? What is happening? Thanks, Paulo Fragoso. -- __O _-\<,_ Why drive when you can bike? (_)/ (_) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Custom boot disks
> > I have several systems with broken PCI chipsets that I need to upgrade to > > 3.4-R from 2.2.7-R. I've patched 'pcibus.c' to fix the problem on these > > systems (reversed the config mode probe order) but now I need to build > > boot/install stiffies to get these machines up and running. Is there any > > quick/simple way to do this without going through a 'make release' > > process? > > Just make a kernel and make sure you keep "options MFS" and "options > MFS_ROOT" in there. Then whap it over the kernel on kern.flp, which > you can mount as a normal floppy. Don't forget to gzip it first, as it probably won't fit otherwise. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
RE: Let 3.x die ASAP?
On 30-Mar-00 C J Michaels wrote: > Judging the stability of 3.x by the postings in this list is inaccurate. > The purpose of this list is to help with problems/questions/etc... Of > course people aren't going to post daily "my 3.x system works great, > thanks!". My 3.4-STABLE system works great! Thanks! > It's a waste of bandwidth. Oops. -- Conrad Sabatier http://members.home.net/conrads/ ICQ# 1147270 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: 3.4-RELEASE; panic while paging
Just general question about these types of hardware problems. Do they occur often under NT or windows as well? Or does FreeBSD just seem to push hardware to its limits more? jm -- Jonathon McKitrick -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] The spice must flow To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: 3.4-RELEASE; panic while paging
Thanks for all the useful suggestions! I exchanged the board for a Gigabyte GA-7IXE and the DIMMs for 2 x 256MB PC100 6ns with 5 year warranty, i.e. supposedly quality parts and I also got a (newer) 650 MHz Athlon. So far this combination seems to be absolutely stable, not a single process has died despite very high loads. What seemed odd with the previous configuration was that with the 128MB DIMMs in use, the kernel would panic immediately as soon as any swap space was touched. This was so predictable that I became worried about the possibility of there being a problem with 512MB RAM and swapping (and Athlons). I wonder what caused this... Regards, Marinos PS. I'd be very interested in helping to build a database of working configurations (this has been discussed recently in the mailing lists) -- ***==> Marinos J. Yannikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ***==> http://pobox.com/~mjy To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Is 3.x stable with a small s ? ummm yes... (was Re: Let 3.x die ASAP?)
At 07:13 PM 3/30/00 +0200, The Unicorn wrote: >On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Forrest W. Christian wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote: >> >> > freebsd seems running version after version and not stability... >> >> > in 1999 (3.x) I was not so sure at all, no stability too many problems. >> >> hmmm >> >> # uptime >> 1:44AM up 46 days, 22:36, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 > >Not to "compare sizes", but: > > 7:05PM up 101 days, 7:17, 5 users, load averages: 1.35, 1.35, 1.24 This is a fairly busy SMP PII 450 web server, a pair of LVD 10K drives, 512MB RAM... According to a quick glance at webalizer, they average 2 million hits a day on a heavily perl generated web site. 1:27PM up 239 days, 23:08, 4 users, load averages: 1.52, 1.46, 1.17 3.1-STABLE FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE #0: Fri Jul 16 10:27:30 EDT 1999 The only thing I have been keeping upto date on it has been the various applications like bind and apache for security reasons. The customer has not paid me to cvsup/rebuild/reboot etc. They are happy and dont want to change a thing as its been so stable for them. So, is 3.x STABLE a stable system ? Yes, it has been for us, as well as many other people... I have a few dozen or so other 3.x boxes deployed in various production sites. They have done very well for us. I have also started deploying 4.x machines slowly into production... Same positive results. So how about we let this thread die ASAP ? Or move it to -chat. ---Mike Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Network Administrator,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sentex Communications www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Let 3.x die ASAP?
At 17.34 30/03/00 +, you wrote: >next time I shall remember to put SARCASM somewhere in BIG letters .. >(my fault, yes) Yes Kiril, Let's do a little joke huh? Stay in tune and prepare your flames:) I tried 2.2.8, maybe was stable but was also the most ignorant system ever seen. Rude and pure. It can slash your hands if you type something wrong on the console. Uuunix Monster! We have now GTK: don't like the evolution? The first fire on Earth was burning with the courious man that use sparks in the near to inflammable materials. That man seems be content, don't worrying so much. Burnt his branches in good & stable flames, in silence, for 3 hours and 4 minutes. The religious, ritual phrase before the flames it seems was :"CVSup!" :)) Regards, Fabrizio *** (loosing my head about 3.x. & 4.x. - sorry for disturb) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Let 3.x die ASAP?
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Forrest W. Christian wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote: > > > freebsd seems running version after version and not stability... > > > in 1999 (3.x) I was not so sure at all, no stability too many problems. > > hmmm > > # uptime > 1:44AM up 46 days, 22:36, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 Not to "compare sizes", but: 7:05PM up 101 days, 7:17, 5 users, load averages: 1.35, 1.35, 1.24 A heavier load and a very stable 3.4-STABLE machine... I still don't know what you (Didier that is) are whining about... Just follow the rules: 1/ Buy reliable hardware 2/ Install a stable OS (FreeBSD) 3/ Use well tested applications, either native coded for FreeBSD or using its GNU/Linux binary compatibility Oh, and... 9/ Make regular backups and test them once-in-a-while. Just because hardware tends to break down when you least expect it... :( > - Forrest W. Christian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) KD7EHZ --- End of Quoted Text --- Ciao, Unicorn. -- === _ __,;;;/ TimeWaster ,;( )_, )~\| A Truly Wise Man Never Plays PGP: 64 07 5D 4C 3F 81 22 73 ;; // `--; Leapfrog With A Unicorn...52 9D 87 08 51 AA 35 F0 ==='= ;\ = | Youth is Not a Time in Life, It is a State of Mind! === Echelon Teasers: NSA CIA FBI Mossad BVD MI5 Cocaine Cuba Revolution Espionage To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Let 3.x die ASAP?
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Kiril Mitev wrote: > > > In other words "2.2 is our most stable version" > > I hope you realise that no single person speaks for FreeBSD, especially > people who aren't committers. That said, a lot of people found 2.2 to be a *sigh* yes i do, a "newbie" wont > This isn't Microsoft where we instantly stop supporting our previous > releases the moment we release an 'upgrade' (true, the ports collection no > longer supports 2.x, but thats for sheer manpower reasons that it's > difficult enough to make ports work on 3 branches, let alone 4). Use the > tool that works for you. next time I shall remember to put SARCASM somewhere in BIG letters .. (my fault, yes) easy on the flame-throwers > Kris > > > In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. > -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Kiril Mitev, IT Operations Mgr, London IDEAglobal.com Standard Corporate Disclaimer applies, see http://www.ideaglobal.com/email-disclaimer.html for details. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Let 3.x die ASAP?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Kiril Mitev wrote: > In other words "2.2 is our most stable version" I hope you realise that no single person speaks for FreeBSD, especially people who aren't committers. That said, a lot of people found 2.2 to be a very stable branch. A lot of people found the same thing about 3.4, but others didn't. Others complained about 2.2 as well - if a version doesn't work on your machine for whatever reason then of course you're going to complain about it being 'unstable' (some people take this to ridiculous extremes). FreeBSD isn't perfect - it is, I claim, very good, and better than the competition, but their marketing departments do everything they can to convince you otherwise. If for some reason they don't want to go to the 3.x branch because of any percieved or real problems, staying with 2.2 is a perfectly reasonable option if it works for you. This isn't Microsoft where we instantly stop supporting our previous releases the moment we release an 'upgrade' (true, the ports collection no longer supports 2.x, but thats for sheer manpower reasons that it's difficult enough to make ports work on 3 branches, let alone 4). Use the tool that works for you. Kris In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Custom boot disks
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 02:08:06 -0800 > From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I have several systems with broken PCI chipsets that I need to upgrade to > > 3.4-R from 2.2.7-R. I've patched 'pcibus.c' to fix the problem on these > > systems (reversed the config mode probe order) but now I need to build > > boot/install stiffies to get these machines up and running. Is there any > > quick/simple way to do this without going through a 'make release' > > process? > > Just make a kernel and make sure you keep "options MFS" and "options > MFS_ROOT" in there. Then whap it over the kernel on kern.flp, which > you can mount as a normal floppy. One step Jordan forgot to mention is that you need to gzip the kernel file before trying to move it to the floppy or it will never fit! Of course this is pretty obvious from the name of the kernel file on the floppy...kernel.gz. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
