Re: trouble with wireless
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Jacob Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Philip Guenther > wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Jacob Wilson >>> wrote: >>> > hello, trying to use an intel centrino w/ wimax >>> > 6150 on version 5.1, i have been trying to figure this out >>> > but >>> > have had no luck >>> >>> dmesg? >> >> dmesg output for the device shows; >> >> ugen1 at uhub3 port 5 "Intel Corporation Intel(R) Centrino(R) Wireless-N + >> WiMAX 6150" rev 2.00/0.00 addr 3 > > Please keep replies on-list. > > It's attached to by ugen, the generic USB driver, so there's no > support in the kernel for using it as a network device. BTW what is the reason for system showing PCI device as something under USB? > > > Philip Guenther
Re: trouble with wireless
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Jacob Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Jacob Wilson >> wrote: >> > hello, trying to use an intel centrino w/ wimax >> > 6150 on version 5.1, i have been trying to figure this out >> > but >> > have had no luck >> >> dmesg? > > dmesg output for the device shows; > > ugen1 at uhub3 port 5 "Intel Corporation Intel(R) Centrino(R) Wireless-N + > WiMAX 6150" rev 2.00/0.00 addr 3 Please keep replies on-list. It's attached to by ugen, the generic USB driver, so there's no support in the kernel for using it as a network device. Philip Guenther
Re: trouble with wireless
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Jacob Wilson wrote: > hello, trying to use an intel centrino w/ wimax > 6150 on version 5.1, i have been trying to figure this out > but > have had no luck dmesg?
trouble with wireless
hello, trying to use an intel centrino w/ wimax 6150 on version 5.1, i have been trying to figure this out but have had no luck pcidump -vx shows; 13:0:0: Intel WiFi Link 6150 0x: Vendor ID: 8086 Product ID: 0886 0x0004: Command: 0006 Status ID: 0010 0x0008: Class: 02 Subclass: 80 Interface: 00 Revision: 67 0x000c: BIST: 00 Header Type: 00 Latency Timer: 00 Cache Line Size: 10 0x0010: BAR mem 64bit addr: 0xc450/0x2000 0x0018: BAR empty () 0x001c: BAR empty () 0x0020: BAR empty () 0x0024: BAR empty () 0x0028: Cardbus CIS: 0x002c: Subsystem Vendor ID: 8086 Product ID: 1315 0x0030: Expansion ROM Base Address: 0x0038: 0x003c: Interrupt Pin: 01 Line: 03 Min Gnt: 00 Max Lat: 00 0x00c8: Capability 0x01: Power Management 0x00d0: Capability 0x05: Message Signaled Interrupts (MSI) 0x00e0: Capability 0x10: PCI Express Link Speed: 2.5 / 2.5 GT/s Link Width: x1 / x1 0x: 08868086 0016 02800067 0010 0x0010: c454 0x0020: 13158086 0x0030: 00c8 0103 and usbdevs -v shows; port 5 addr 3: high speed, self powered, config 1, Intel(R) Centrino(R) Wireless-N + WiMAX 6150(0x07d7), Intel Corporation(0x8087), rev 0.00
Re: Portable version of cwm(1)?
"Aaron W. Hsu" writes: > Has anyone done a portable version of cwm(1) from the OpenBSD > tree? I just made an attempt, and it was pretty straightforward, > but if someone has made a more serious attempt I would prefer > to consider that. Christian Neukirchen has one, and plans to keep it in sync with every OpenBSD release: http://chneukirchen.org/releases/
Portable version of cwm(1)?
Has anyone done a portable version of cwm(1) from the OpenBSD tree? I just made an attempt, and it was pretty straightforward, but if someone has made a more serious attempt I would prefer to consider that. -- Aaron W. Hsu | arcf...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
Re: Hardware/System Question
> > Optiplexes have a reputation for spontaneously letting the magic smoke out > > of their own power supply capacitors. hard to recommend unless you have a > > good support deal with dell > > Knowing which way round to hold a soldering iron is a useful skill > if you're dealing with cheap hardware :) I keep forgetting that, no wonder I'm a cripple. Worrying, I have an optiplex connected to my TV which sounds like a whining stressed capacitor whenever it's first turned on. Hopefully the damage is always contained. -- Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.
Re: Hardware/System Question
On 23.06.12 20:12, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/06/23 11:02, Ben Calvert wrote: >> Optiplexes have a reputation for spontaneously letting the magic smoke out >> of their own power supply capacitors. hard to recommend unless you have a >> good support deal with dell > > Knowing which way round to hold a soldering iron is a useful skill > if you're dealing with cheap hardware :) Thats what I did with my SX270s ;-)
Re: Hardware/System Question
On 06/23/2012 01:12 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/06/23 11:02, Ben Calvert wrote: >> Optiplexes have a reputation for spontaneously letting the magic smoke out of their own power supply capacitors. hard to recommend unless you have a good support deal with dell > > Knowing which way round to hold a soldering iron is a useful skill > if you're dealing with cheap hardware :) > > > While on the subject of cheap hardware My test lab is made of a bunch of Wyse 941GXLs I bought on Ebay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wyse-Terminals-Lot-of-5-FREE-SHIPPING-/120922782473?p t=US_Thin_Clients&hash=item1c278f3b09 Mine specifically have Via C3 1Ghz CPUs (i386 only) with 256MB RAM (with an empty DIMM slot) and I use IDE to CF adapters like these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Compact-Flash-CF-to-3-5-Female-40-Pin-IDE-Bootable-Ad apter-Converter-Card-/120937687353?pt=US_Drive_Cables_dapters&hash=item1c2872 a939 ... (with CF cards, of course) for the boot disks. The cards are kind of a tight fit, but you can still add a half-length PCI card to the units, and I have mine populated with these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Intel-PRO-100-Dual-Port-Server-Adapter-9213P-/20 0739620019?pt=US_Internal_Network_Cards&hash=item2ebd0384b3 I haven't had any issues out of any of them, running at times for weeks on end doing various tasks. They're also silent :) I spent about $100 on each of them a while back, and prices look to have come down a good bit since then. A very good purchase, in my opinion. I don't really think these fit your needs very well, but thought I'd throw these out there while the subject was on cheap hardware. *I'd personally look at* some of the more current and powerful Mini-ITX stuff. You can even get LGA1155 Mini-ITX boards nowdays, with i7 processor support for around $75 (Intel BOXDH61DLB3, for example) and add whatever components you want to it. If you're on a budget, a Celeron G530 should work and would kill an Atom or E-350 at any task. Thank you, -- James Shupe [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Hardware/System Question
On 2012/06/23 11:02, Ben Calvert wrote: > Optiplexes have a reputation for spontaneously letting the magic smoke out of > their own power supply capacitors. hard to recommend unless you have a good > support deal with dell Knowing which way round to hold a soldering iron is a useful skill if you're dealing with cheap hardware :)
Re: Hardware/System Question
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Michał Markowski wrote: > 2012/6/23 Stuart Henderson : >> They don't appear to be cheap enough to counteract the fact that >> performance/spec is probably best described as "optimized for running >> as a terminal service client", looks like something a bit newer like >> an eee box is only a little more expensive (and comes with a hard drive..) > > Well, my t5135 cost me about 70 pln (ca. 20 usd), so I don't see Eee > box "only a little more exspensive". :) It depends on what performance > you need, but for home file server it's enough - with external hdd it > can easily saturate 100 Mbps link during nfs transfers. > Do you have some spare? ;-) On Ebay they start from 50USD > -- > Michał Markowski
Re: Hardware/System Question
Optiplexes have a reputation for spontaneously letting the magic smoke out of their own power supply capacitors. hard to recommend unless you have a good support deal with dell On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012-06-23, Peter wrote: >>> On 2012-06-22, Michał Markowski wrote: I can recommend this one: http://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/hp/t5135/index.shtml Other HP thin clients should be ok as well. >>> >>> They don't appear to be cheap enough to counteract the fact that >>> performance/spec is probably best described as "optimized for running >>> as a terminal service client", looks like something a bit newer like >>> an eee box is only a little more expensive (and comes with a hard drive..) >> >> EeePCs and EeeBoxes have an ExpressGate/Splashtop remote BIOS. Not that other >> BIOSes are necessarily cleaner but this one's a stinker for sure. > > I don't know specifically about eeeboxes but not all the eeepcs have this bios. > Maybe Optiplex fx160 then? they're cheap at the moment and also small.
Re: Memory error with latest snapshot
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:10, Chris Bennett wrote: > I am getting the following error when trying to run gvim and xombrero > I also got it on snapshot before latest for xombrero. > > > ***MEMORY-ERROR***: xombrero[25991]: GSlice: failed to allocate 8184 > bytes (alignment: 8192): Invalid argument > Running i386 > > Is it snapshot or something I need to do here? it's the snapshot. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=134044041627774&w=2
Re: Memory error with latest snapshot
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:10:09PM -0500, Chris Bennett wrote: > I am getting the following error when trying to run gvim and xombrero > I also got it on snapshot before latest for xombrero. > > > ***MEMORY-ERROR***: xombrero[25991]: GSlice: failed to allocate 8184 > bytes (alignment: 8192): Invalid argument > Running i386 > > Is it snapshot or something I need to do here? > Read the thread on the mailing list: "GSlice: failed to allocate" -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
Re: Memory error with latest snapshot
Sorry, this is a known issue. See my posts to ports@: http://marc.info/?t=13404366491&r=1&w=2 Summary is it's an issue due to base and package snapshots being out of sync at the moment. On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Chris Bennett wrote: > I am getting the following error when trying to run gvim and xombrero > I also got it on snapshot before latest for xombrero. > > > ***MEMORY-ERROR***: xombrero[25991]: GSlice: failed to allocate 8184 > bytes (alignment: 8192): Invalid argument > Running i386 > > Is it snapshot or something I need to do here? > > Thanks > Chris Bennett
Re: Memory error with latest snapshot
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Chris Bennett wrote: > I am getting the following error when trying to run gvim and xombrero > I also got it on snapshot before latest for xombrero. > > > ***MEMORY-ERROR***: xombrero[25991]: GSlice: failed to allocate 8184 > bytes (alignment: 8192): Invalid argument > Running i386 > > Is it snapshot or something I need to do here? I don't know either, but xombrero throws a lot of errors during its run including abortions :-( > > Thanks > Chris Bennett
Re: Hardware/System Question
On 2012-06-23, Peter wrote: >>On 2012-06-22, Michał Markowski wrote: >>> I can recommend this one: >>> http://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/hp/t5135/index.shtml >>> Other HP thin clients should be ok as well. >> >>They don't appear to be cheap enough to counteract the fact that >>performance/spec is probably best described as "optimized for running >>as a terminal service client", looks like something a bit newer like >>an eee box is only a little more expensive (and comes with a hard drive..) > > EeePCs and EeeBoxes have an ExpressGate/Splashtop remote BIOS. Not that other > BIOSes are necessarily cleaner but this one's a stinker for sure. I don't know specifically about eeeboxes but not all the eeepcs have this bios. Maybe Optiplex fx160 then? they're cheap at the moment and also small.
Re: Hardware/System Question
>On 2012-06-22, Michał Markowski wrote: >> I can recommend this one: >> http://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/hp/t5135/index.shtml >> Other HP thin clients should be ok as well. > >They don't appear to be cheap enough to counteract the fact that >performance/spec is probably best described as "optimized for running >as a terminal service client", looks like something a bit newer like >an eee box is only a little more expensive (and comes with a hard drive..) EeePCs and EeeBoxes have an ExpressGate/Splashtop remote BIOS. Not that other BIOSes are necessarily cleaner but this one's a stinker for sure. -- p
Memory error with latest snapshot
I am getting the following error when trying to run gvim and xombrero I also got it on snapshot before latest for xombrero. ***MEMORY-ERROR***: xombrero[25991]: GSlice: failed to allocate 8184 bytes (alignment: 8192): Invalid argument Running i386 Is it snapshot or something I need to do here? Thanks Chris Bennett
Re: Hardware/System Question
2012/6/23 Stuart Henderson : > They don't appear to be cheap enough to counteract the fact that > performance/spec is probably best described as "optimized for running > as a terminal service client", looks like something a bit newer like > an eee box is only a little more expensive (and comes with a hard drive..) Well, my t5135 cost me about 70 pln (ca. 20 usd), so I don't see Eee box "only a little more exspensive". :) It depends on what performance you need, but for home file server it's enough - with external hdd it can easily saturate 100 Mbps link during nfs transfers. -- Michał Markowski
Re: OpenBSD as IPv4+6 gateway
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:34:39 -0500, Paul de Weerd wrote: "It makes renumbering easier" is a very poor argument. Renumbering is just as easy wether you use /64s or /126s. Simply replace the first 64 bits and .. tadaa.wav .. you've renumbered. I can't seem to grasp why anyone is worried about renumbering at all. The only time we'd ever have to do that is if someone picked up all their equipment and took it to another physical hosting location. Our allocation is ours and we can advertise it out any providers we want for eternity.
Re: OpenBSD forked
Hey, On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 03:04:39PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:55:02PM +0200, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > That's an implementation detail :-p > > > > Someone who really wants to understand things will look at the man > > pages and try to understand, someone who doesn't give a damn about > > getting things done right will produce crap with or without proper > > courses ... > > > > I don't think you can really understand fork/exit/wait without proper > course material, just from the man pages. > > That is, read R.J.Steven, obviously. Do you have a reference for this? cheers, -- n
Re: wifi not detected during installation
Tomasz Marszal wrote: > You can look in http://firmware.OpenBSD.org/firmware. You can look on the > manufacturers spec if it support OpenBSD, There is a possibility to add > unsupported hardware by compiling its driver in to the kernel if its not > in GENERIC > Although I am not an expert in server hardware i would look in mobo users > manual if there is a jumper for disabling/enabling pcie and in bios. You > didnt told us where the Atheros chip is situated is it on mother board on > pcie card or is it external device. > > Best Regards > Tomek > > If You use laptop You can look for the both sidec of the machine there > shuld be a switch > > You told us it is a chip but no info about where is it s > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:48:41 +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:21:10PM -0700, Sha'ul wrote: >>> I can't get the Atheros AR9485WB-EG wireless network adapter >>> working. I think it might be tied into the Atheros AR3012 bluetooth >>> 3.0 and Broadcom wireless utility. Looking at athn(4), is there no >>> support for it? >> >> The kernel can't see the pcie device. Perhaps a pcie hotplug >> event is used along with a rfkill switch. Is there a hardware >> switch to enable/disable wireless on the machine? If I understand the dmesg (and OpenBSD device drivers) properly: > OpenBSD 5.2-beta (GENERIC.MP) #0: Fri Jun 22 11:44:03 PDT 2012 > sh...@fgsr.vc.shawcable.net:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP > ... Home built kernel, did the OP make any source modifications ? > ppb4 at pci0 dev 21 function 0 "AMD Hudson-2 PCIE" rev 0x00 > pci5 at ppb4 bus 5 > "Atheros AR9485" rev 0x01 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 not configured > ... There's an "Atheros AR9485" device connected to a PCIe bridge. Being "not configured" meaning that there's currently no driver support for this device. > ... > ugen0 at uhub4 port 1 "Atheros Communications Bluetooth USB Host > Controller" rev 1.10/0.01 addr 2 > ... Something similar here, an "Atheros Communications Bluetooth USB Host Controller" USB device is connected, but being attached to ugen, there's no driver for this device either, at present. (besides, AFAICT there's no bluetooth support anyway)
Re: OpenBSD as IPv4+6 gateway
On 2012-06-22, Mark Felder wrote: > Now /127s would of course be equal do using /31s in IPv4 which I find > interesting but dangerous (compatibility is sketchy outside Cisco from > what I've seen, IPv4 /31's work nicely in OpenBSD since 5.0, by the way. I'm using them for point-to-point links with ospfd.
Re: OpenBSD as IPv4+6 gateway
On 2012-06-21, Mark Felder wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:34:51 -0500, Ryan Kirk wrote: > >> In my limited experience with ipv6, this has been the case. The >> provider has you on a /64 of their own (not part of your /48), so your >> WAN interface would have one of their IP's on it, and they should tell >> you exactly what it should be. Just as it's done in IPv4. Your own >> personal /48 is then routed through that IP. You can assign more IP's >> from your /48 to your WAN interface, of course, by dedicating a /64 to >> it. But you will always need to have at least the one ISP IP on it. > > The provider shouldn't be using a /64 for the link net. That means your > router is getting the broadcasts from everyone else on that link net. They can lay out their network how they like, but it is certainly not uncommon to use /64 link nets with just the two hosts on. > The > provider should be setting aside something like a /64 for link nets and > actually be giving you /126s. Opinions differ. Suggestions include at least /127 (as recommended by RFC 6164), /126, /112 (for ease of reverse dns delegation), /64...
Re: Hardware/System Question
On 2012-06-22, Michał Markowski wrote: > I can recommend this one: > http://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/hp/t5135/index.shtml > Other HP thin clients should be ok as well. They don't appear to be cheap enough to counteract the fact that performance/spec is probably best described as "optimized for running as a terminal service client", looks like something a bit newer like an eee box is only a little more expensive (and comes with a hard drive..)
Re: wifi not detected during installation
You can look in http://firmware.OpenBSD.org/firmware. You can look on the manufacturers spec if it support OpenBSD, There is a possibility to add unsupported hardware by compiling its driver in to the kernel if its not in GENERIC Although I am not an expert in server hardware i would look in mobo users manual if there is a jumper for disabling/enabling pcie and in bios. You didnt told us where the Atheros chip is situated is it on mother board on pcie card or is it external device. Best Regards Tomek If You use laptop You can look for the both sidec of the machine there shuld be a switch You told us it is a chip but no info about where is it s On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:48:41 +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:21:10PM -0700, Sha'ul wrote: >> I can't get the Atheros AR9485WB-EG wireless network adapter >> working. I think it might be tied into the Atheros AR3012 bluetooth >> 3.0 and Broadcom wireless utility. Looking at athn(4), is there no >> support for it? > > The kernel can't see the pcie device. Perhaps a pcie hotplug > event is used along with a rfkill switch. Is there a hardware > switch to enable/disable wireless on the machine?
Re: wifi not detected during installation
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:21:10PM -0700, Sha'ul wrote: > I can't get the Atheros AR9485WB-EG wireless network adapter > working. I think it might be tied into the Atheros AR3012 bluetooth > 3.0 and Broadcom wireless utility. Looking at athn(4), is there no > support for it? The kernel can't see the pcie device. Perhaps a pcie hotplug event is used along with a rfkill switch. Is there a hardware switch to enable/disable wireless on the machine?
Re: macppc will it survive?
2012/6/22 Miod Vallat : >> I doubt you could build mac68k in a week. > He could. > >> My HP 345 takes roughly two weeks to build src, if there are no >> problems. IIRC 8-10h to build a kernel. > > Yours is a 68030 with 8MB, you're swap-bound. His is a 68040 with 64ish > MB. My amiga-m68k that built 2.8-3.0 I was compiling on a 68060@50MHz with 128M ram. I seem to recall base being somewhere over 1-2 days, and X taking 3 days, mostly spending its time gzipping font files. But the "not-fun" part of course still applies. Having a this-will-go-to-release build fail at X11 is a real dog. >> The interesting question really would be: Are there any plans to get rid >> of m68k entirely. Because then I would have to switch to RusticBSD... > > There are no plans to get rid of it but it is standing in the way of > interesting changes, so it is increasingly closer to being left to rot. > >> Another thing I'm wondering about is whether coldfire is compatible >> enough to run the m68k userland. > > Not without kernel assistance, and you would need custom ROMs in order > to boot... Aren't they lacking a bunch of m68k instructions also? That would probably mean they would have to hit a bunch of "unimplemented instruction" exceptions and emulate them. For 68060, just hitting those for 64bit MUL/DIV in openssl code was a pain. -- To our sweethearts and wives. May they never meet. -- 19th century toast
