6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Hi all. I'm come back to ask you some question about what release I can use. I've nfs server running 6-Stable (5 April 2006) with some trouble but ... well approx stable. But today he crash again (after ~1.5 mounth). Now I'm like have some advise : 1/ I can upgrade to 6.1-Release, but I've see many problem with nfsd heavy load. And the only purpose of this server is .. nfsd. 2/ I can upgrade to 6-Stable...but it's for production server... 3/ I can downgrade to 5.5. I known this is legacy release but if it's workthat's enought for me... Regards. -- Albert SHIH Universite de Paris 7 (Denis DIDEROT) U.F.R. de Mathematiques. 7 i?me ?tage, plateau D, bureau 10 Heure local/Local time: Thu Jun 8 00:19:23 CEST 2006 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Albert Shih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've nfs server running 6-Stable (5 April 2006) with some trouble but ... > well approx stable. > > But today he crash again (after ~1.5 mounth). There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS- related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release. Therefore I recommend that you update to RELENG_6_1. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:46 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS- > related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release. Therefore > I recommend that you update to RELENG_6_1. Did you mean RELENG_6, right? -- Massimo.run(); ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS- > > related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release. Therefore > > I recommend that you update to RELENG_6_1. > > Did you mean RELENG_6, right? No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machine, therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1. Of course, there might be good reasons to run RELENG_6 anyway, in case that significant NFS fixes have gone in after the release (which I'm not aware of). But that decision is up to Albert himself. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. Passwords are like underwear. You don't share them, you don't hang them on your monitor or under your keyboard, you don't email them, or put them on a web site, and you must change them very often. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch > for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not > to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machine, > therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1. If read right he is already running a RELENG_6. > Of course, there might be good reasons to run RELENG_6 > anyway, in case that significant NFS fixes have gone in > after the release (which I'm not aware of). But that > decision is up to Albert himself. Actually if i remember right the NFS fix are gone in the RELENG_6 and not in RELENG_6_1 Regards -- Massimo.run(); ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch > > for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not > > to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machine, > > therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1. > > If read right he is already running a RELENG_6. Yes -- "with some trouble", as he wrote. :-) > > Of course, there might be good reasons to run RELENG_6 > > anyway, in case that significant NFS fixes have gone in > > after the release (which I'm not aware of). But that > > decision is up to Albert himself. > > Actually if i remember right the NFS fix are gone in the RELENG_6 and > not in RELENG_6_1 What do you mean, "the" NFS fix? Several fixes were comitted before the release, so they're in RELENG_6_1, of course. I don't know if any important fixes were comitted after the release, and if so, whether they are related to Albert's problem. He wrote that he would prefer to avoid RELENG_6 on his production server, therefore my recommendation was to give RELENG_6_1 a try (whose purpose is exactly to be used in situations like this). Chances are that his machine will become more stable. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Le 09/06/2006 à 09:26:20+0200, Massimo Lusetti a écrit > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch > > for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not > > to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. "6-stable") on a production machine, > > therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1. > > If read right he is already running a RELENG_6. Wellyes but after many many crash during many mounth I've running a Releng_6 (6 April 2006) and it's don't crash. And I don't have update. Now the server crash yesterday (monday) and I'm asking if it's good idea to update again. > > > Of course, there might be good reasons to run RELENG_6 > > anyway, in case that significant NFS fixes have gone in > > after the release (which I'm not aware of). But that > > decision is up to Albert himself. > > Actually if i remember right the NFS fix are gone in the RELENG_6 and > not in RELENG_6_1 OK, that's mean if I update I need to update to RELENG_6 not RELENG_6_1. Lots of thanks. Regards. -- Albert SHIH Universite de Paris 7 (Denis DIDEROT) U.F.R. de Mathematiques. 7 ième étage, plateau D, bureau 10 Heure local/Local time: Fri Jun 9 09:46:58 CEST 2006 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Albert Shih writes: I've nfs server running 6-Stable (5 April 2006) with some trouble but ... well approx stable. But today he crash again (after ~1.5 mounth). Now I'm like have some advise : 1/ I can upgrade to 6.1-Release, but I've see many problem with nfsd heavy load. And the only purpose of this server is .. nfsd. We have been upgrading to 6.X.. including 6.1 and so far the server seems, for the most part stable, until a few days ago(more below). What is a HUGE problem for us so far is that if the server hanks.. all clients that are 6.X can't unmount. 6.0 stable, 6.1 stable.. recent 6.1.. not so recent 6.1.. UDP, TCP, softmount with retrycount 1... In short. Right now I would not recommend 6.X for nfs client. 3/ I can downgrade to 5.5. I known this is legacy release but if it's workthat's enought for me... So far 6.X has been for the most part stable as NFS sever for us.. but one of our servers has been hanging crashing and NFSD was showing as status "GIANT"... and locking.. It had 6.0 stable and upgrading it to 6.1 stable (6-26) has not helped. But other machines are ok.. so may be an application. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:09:14AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: > So far 6.X has been for the most part stable as NFS sever for us.. but one > of our servers has been hanging crashing and NFSD was showing as status > "GIANT"... and locking.. It had 6.0 stable and upgrading it to 6.1 stable > (6-26) has not helped. But other machines are ok.. so may be an application. You'll want to upgrade to the latest 6-STABLE, where this bug has been fixed. -- Rink P.W. Springer- http://rink.nu "Richter: Tribute? You steal men's souls, and make them your slaves! Dracula: Perhaps the same could be said of all religions." - Castlevania: Symphony of the Night pgpa9nxeDyVMF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Rink Springer writes: On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:09:14AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: So far 6.X has been for the most part stable as NFS sever for us.. but one of our servers has been hanging crashing and NFSD was showing as status "GIANT" You'll want to upgrade to the latest 6-STABLE, where this bug has been fixed. RELENG_6? From what I can tell that is stable RELENG_6 The line of development for FreeBSD-6.X, also known as FreeBSD 6-STABLE FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #4: Sun Jun 25 < Was it fixed after Jun 25? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
> Was it fixed after Jun 25? This comment fixed it for me: --- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:50:29 + (UTC) From: Konstantin Belousov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: cvs commit: src/sys/nfsserver nfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c kib 2006-06-13 10:50:29 UTC FreeBSD src repository Modified files:(Branch: RELENG_6) sys/nfsservernfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c Log: MFC of the temporary fix for nfsd leaking GIANT. src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c rev. 1.165 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c rev. 1.141 Approved by:pjd (mentor) Revision ChangesPath 1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c 1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c --- Perhaps you could check your revisions of these files? If this does not fix it, something more is certainly going on ... -- Rink P.W. Springer- http://rink.nu "Richter: Tribute? You steal men's souls, and make them your slaves! Dracula: Perhaps the same could be said of all religions." - Castlevania: Symphony of the Night pgp0uHgVgNFSB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Rink Springer writes: FreeBSD src repository Modified files:(Branch: RELENG_6) sys/nfsservernfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c Log: MFC of the temporary fix for nfsd leaking GIANT. src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c rev. 1.165 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c rev. 1.141 Both of those files were older. Approved by:pjd (mentor) Revision ChangesPath 1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c 1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c The above files are what I have. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:23:15AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Rink Springer writes: > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files:(Branch: RELENG_6) > >sys/nfsservernfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c > > Log: > > MFC of the temporary fix for nfsd leaking GIANT. > > > > src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c rev. 1.165 > > src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c rev. 1.141 > > Both of those files were older. > > > Approved by:pjd (mentor) > > Revision ChangesPath > > 1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c > > 1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c > > The above files are what I have. What this means ? That you have _this_ revisions of the files, and your LA skyrocketed ? pgpjIkjbtX0HR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Kostik Belousov writes: > Approved by:pjd (mentor) > Revision ChangesPath > 1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c > 1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c The above files are what I have. Yes from a 6.1 stable around 6-25-06 What this means ? That you have _this_ revisions of the files, and your LA skyrocketed ? LA = load average? Our problem is vmstat 'b' column growing and nfs causing locks on the server side. When the machine locked it was running a background fsck. I saw "Giant" a lot in the status of the nfsd. I am really wondering if 6.1 is ready for production under heavy load. And for sure the NFS client in the whole 6.X line seems problematic (see my post in the stable list under subject: NFS clients freeze and can not disconnect). As for the vmstat, about the only thing doing anything even remotely appearing to be doing work is NFS. For instance I saw this in another thread: ps ax -O ppid,flags,mwchan | awk '($6 ~ /^D/ || $6 == "STAT") && $3 !~ /^20.$/' And in the machine in question it shows PID PPID F MWCHAN TT STAT TIME COMMAND 16124 16123 0 biowr ?? D 46:24.76 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16125 16123 0 biowr ?? D 16:05.58 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16126 16123 0 biowr ?? D 11:05.53 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16127 16123 0 biowr ?? D 8:01.21 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16128 16123 0 biowr ?? D 6:19.15 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16129 16123 0 biowr ?? D 5:01.27 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16130 16123 0 biowr ?? D 3:55.56 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16131 16123 0 biowr ?? D 3:13.11 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16132 16123 0 biowr ?? D 2:43.26 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16133 16123 0 biowr ?? D 2:16.40 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16134 16123 0 biowr ?? D 1:57.00 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16135 16123 0 biowr ?? D 1:41.02 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16136 16123 0 biowr ?? D 1:27.07 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16137 16123 0 biowr ?? D 1:15.25 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16138 16123 0 biowr ?? D 1:06.54 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16139 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:57.57 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16140 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:50.65 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16141 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:44.60 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16142 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:38.29 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16143 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:34.21 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16144 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:29.34 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16145 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:26.35 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16146 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:22.25 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16147 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:18.17 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16148 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:15.95 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16149 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:13.66 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16150 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:10.81 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16151 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:08.92 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16152 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:06.82 nfsd: server (nfsd) 16153 16123 0 biowr ?? D 0:05.16 nfsd: server (nfsd) 84338 100434100 ufs ?? D 0:02.00 qmgr -l -t fifo -u 91632 100434100 biowr ?? D 0:00.02 cleanup -z -t unix -u 91650 100434100 ufs ?? D 0:00.04 [smtpd] 91912 866354100 biowr ?? Ds 0:00.01 /usr/local/bin/maildrop -d [EMAIL PROTECTED] 91916 905794100 biowr ?? Ds 0:00.01 /usr/local/bin/maildrop -d [EMAIL PROTECTED] 71677 716724002 ppwait p1 D 0:00.15 -su (csh) The iostat for that machine shows: iostat 5 tty da0pass0 cpu tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id 0 130 15.35 109 1.63 0.00 0 0.00 6 0 6 1 87 0 36 10.43 230 2.34 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 2 1 93 0 12 10.81 280 2.96 0.00 0 0.00 6 0 2 0 92 0 12 13.03 259 3.30 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 1 1 98 0 12 12.87 259 3.26 0.00 0 0.00 5 0 2 1 91 0 12 17.17 228 3.82 0.00 0 0.00 8 0 3 1 87 0 12 18.38 306 5.49 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 2 1 94 0 12 14.53 284 4.04 0.00 0 0.00 6 0 3 1 89 0 12 26.03 213 5.41 0.00 0 0.00 5 0 3 2 91 Before that machine went into production, during the stress test I saw the machine do 700+ tps and substantially more MB/s. We also have another machine identical hardware wise and although it's tps is 50 to 100 less than this one.. the machine is always ver low in the 'b' column. I am trying now to read up in vmstat.. to see if I can see anything wrong in vmstat -s 1660720108 cpu context switches 736683712 device interrupts 46973243 software interrupts 99310719 traps 3405487756 system calls 46 kernel threads created 385149 fork() calls 7785 vfork() calls 0 rfork() calls 2809 swap pager pageins 4449 swap pager pages paged in 2027 swap pager pageouts 4609 swap pager pages pag
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:38:54PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Kostik Belousov writes: > > >>> Approved by:pjd (mentor) > >>> Revision ChangesPath > >>> 1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c > >>> 1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c > >> > >>The above files are what I have. > > Yes from a 6.1 stable around 6-25-06 > > >What this means ? That you have _this_ revisions of the files, > >and your LA skyrocketed ? > > LA = load average? > > Our problem is vmstat 'b' column growing and nfs causing locks on the > server side. When the machine locked it was running a background fsck. I > saw "Giant" a lot in the status of the nfsd. This seems to be a different issue. BTW, I have already heard complaints about deadlocks caused by combination of nfsd and snapshots. Probably, I will look into this, but cannot give you estimations when. For now, you could turn off background fsck. pgpWAqck5MnOg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:38:54PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: > I am really wondering if 6.1 is ready for production under heavy load. And > for sure the NFS client in the whole 6.X line seems problematic (see my > post in the stable list under subject: NFS clients freeze and can not > disconnect). It's not easily possible for a FreeBSD developer to put these kinds of stresses on a machine, so we rely on our users to help us with these problems. In particular, if it is possible for people to create synthetic workloads based on their own codebases, on non-production machines, these problems are more likely to be solved. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Mark Linimon writes: It's not easily possible for a FreeBSD developer to put these kinds of stresses on a machine, so we rely on our users to help us with these problems. And this is why I have been trying to someone to PAY him/her to help us. I have been trying to find if anyone that works with the NFS code in FreeBSD would have time to work with us on a consulting bases to get the NFS client in 6 fixed. As for the vmstat problem with that machine.. the same.. if someone was willing to help us track down what in 6.X .. or even our settings.. is causing this heavy load we would definitely be willing to pay. Should I contact the FreeBSD foundation for this? In particular the NFS client is a killer problem for us. Anyone can recommend who to talk to? Should I be writing to the filesystem list? I am not sure how much of a problem the nfs server side is, but the client in the whole 6.X line has been problematic for us. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
Kostik Belousov writes: This seems to be a different issue. BTW, I have already heard complaints about deadlocks caused by combination of nfsd and snapshots. I think you can add: nfsd + background fsck too. Probably, I will look into this, but cannot give you estimations when. Thank!! For now, you could turn off background fsck. We did.. and it was horrible.. It seems mysql was crashing the machine so we had 4 reboots in about 5 days. Since we had to give up on background fsck, that meant 2 hours every time the machine rebooted (the machine in question has 10+ million files in the volume which takes the 2 hours to fsck). ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote: Kostik Belousov writes: > Approved by:pjd (mentor) > Revision ChangesPath > 1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c > 1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c The above files are what I have. Yes from a 6.1 stable around 6-25-06 What this means ? That you have _this_ revisions of the files, and your LA skyrocketed ? LA = load average? Our problem is vmstat 'b' column growing and nfs causing locks on the server side. When the machine locked it was running a background fsck. I saw "Giant" a lot in the status of the nfsd. 'k, you are going through something similar to me, it seems ... have you implemented the stuff on: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug-deadlocks.html and: enabled DDB within your kernel? (man ddb) ... DDB is required for the deadlocks debugging ... also, is this a machine you have 'easy hands on' for? (ie. in my case, I'm dealing with remote servers, which is *really* fun) ... Actually, what you will want to do is setup a serial console if you can, so that you can 'trap the output' of the commands that stuff like ps and all that will throw out from DDB, unless you *really* like to write? I can help you get this all setup offlist if you wish, just email me and we'll work through the steps required ... once you have a debug environment in place, then generating a good/complete/in depth problem report is easier ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.1-R ? 6-Stable ? 5.5-R ?
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:57:13PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: > And this is why I have been trying to someone to PAY him/her to help us. OK, sorry, I had not picked this up from the thread, which I had mostly just been scanning. My apologies. > Should I contact the FreeBSD foundation for this? You can ask, but the Foundation AFAICT isn't really set up for something like this. They are mostly looking at funding new initiatives, again, from what I can tell. Currently there's no "right" way to do this. I'd like to see someone set up a "marketplace" for things like this but I don't have time to do it myself (plus, I would participate -- a definite conflict of interest). In the meantime you can try posting to freebsd-jobs@ and/or look through the list of FreeBSD Consulting Service Providers at http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consult_bycat.html. It also references http://berklix.com/~jhs/consultants/, but I don't know if that is up-to-date. Finally, I'd happily take on the job myself, but I'd be lying if I said I knew anything about the problem at hand :-) Good luck. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
