Re: uvm_fault after fsck on OpenBSD 3.9
You can probably test if I'm barking up the right tree or barking mad by booting a 4.3 bsd.rd and see if you can fsck your root partition. Since you appear to have a serial console, I'd try to do this by booting single user, mount -f / (to skip the fsck), start the rest of the system, and copy over a 4.3 bsd.rd, then reboot off it. If the fsck works, reboot, and upgrade the machine, please. Nick. Turned out to be bad RAM. Fortunately the system had 2 512MB sticks, so we just pulled one and its running fine. I'll be upgrading soon. -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512 Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com
uvm_fault after fsck on OpenBSD 3.9
pagedaemon 11 0 0 0 30x100204 pftm pfpurge 10 0 0 0 30x100204 iicexecsensors 9 0 0 0 30x100204 usbevt usb4 8 0 0 0 30x100204 usbevt usb3 7 0 0 0 30x100204 usbevt usb2 6 0 0 0 30x100204 usbevt usb1 5 0 0 0 30x100204 usbtsk usbtask 4 0 0 0 30x100204 usbevt usb0 3 0 0 0 30x100204 apmev apm0 2 0 0 0 30x100204 kmallockmthread 1 0 1 0 3 0x4084 wait init 0 -1 0 0 3 0x80204 scheduler swapper -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512 Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com
Re: Using the C programming language
Rico Secada wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:06:39 -0600 David Higgs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 22, 2007 5:53 PM, Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is my understanding that C is the hackers tool while Ada is the tool of the engineer. I think it is mostly because of tradition. Your understanding is wrong. I suspect that many professional engineers using C (and/or other languages) would strongly disagree with your offhand characterization. Doesn't matter what language is used, you can still shoot yourself in the foot: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~baber/TechnicalReports/Ariane5/Ariane5.htm http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane5rep.html The internal SRI software exception was caused during execution of a data conversion from 64-bit floating point to 16-bit signed integer value. The floating point number which was converted had a value greater than what could be represented by a 16-bit signed integer. This resulted in an Operand Error. The data conversion instructions (in Ada code) were not protected from causing an Operand Error, although other conversions of comparable variables in the same place in the code were protected. -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512 Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com
Re: About Xen: maybe a reiterative question but ..
Don Jackson wrote: I wanted to add my 2 cents to this thread. Ignoring the debate/flamage on this thread regarding the security merits/risks of virtualization, I beleive there are a number of us who would like the option to run OpenBSD as a guest under various virtual machine frameworks. Even if it is less secure than dedicating a machine to the problem at hand. I would also like to see OpenBSD as an option for both Xen Dom0/DomU installations. After reading this thread, I've learned a lot about VM security issues. Personally, I'd feel more a bit more secure having OpenBSD host a Windows or Linux guest, rather than the reverse. I don't think it would be appropriate to have Xen included with the stock OpenBSD kernel/distribution, due to both the security issues, and license issues (Xen is GPL). It may be better for the project to have Xen available as a port, which would include the hypervisor, kernel images, and the associated tools. The port could also contain useful documentation on the security implications of using VM technology. Whether the OpenBSD developers would bless a Xen port is the next question... -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512 Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com
dhcpd problem: Can't get interface flags for ... device not configured
May 12 16:23:45 vfi dhcpd: Can't get interface flags for
\M-{9\M-l\M-Xt\M-X\M-?\M-OI\M-!\^A: Device not configured
May 12 16:23:45 vfi dhcpd:
May 12 16:23:45 vfi dhcpd: If you did not get this software from
ftp.isc.org, please
May 12 16:23:45 vfi dhcpd: get the latest from ftp.isc.org and install
that before
May 12 16:23:45 vfi dhcpd: requesting help.
I just made a quick change to my dhcpd config, and tried to restart. Am
now getting the error message above.
Anyone know what that is?
I'm using isc-dhcpd-V3.0pl2 on OpenBSD 3.3, I've also tried the latest
dhcpd, and examined my config files for stupid typos (none found). This
system has been running dhcpd for years without prior issues.
Thanks.
--
Sincerely,
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator
--
Net Idea
201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:888-246-4222
10 Years of Service Excellence!
Visit us online at:
www.netidea.com | www.netidea.biz
Need help with OpenBGPd Configuration
Hi all,
I'm trying to set up a multihomed network using OpenBGPd on OpenBSD 3.6.
I've got a BGP session up with my first ISP which works fine. Now I am
trying to set up BGP with my second ISP, which needs a multihop
configuration. I have not been able to get it working on my own, and was
unable to find any example configurations on this matter for OpenBGPd.
My only BGP experience so far is with OpenBGP, so I'm quite new at this.
They asked me to set up the following (they of course assume I have a
cisco):
router bgp 33714
neighbor 64.114.173.22 remote-as 852
neighbor 64.114.173.22 ebgp-multihop 2
I translated that as:
peer1=64.114.173.22
neighbor $peer1 {
remote-as 852
descr ISP2
announceself
multihop 2
#set nexthop 207.194.161.134
}
207.194.161.134 is the router in between me and 64.114.173.22 - I've
tried with and without set nexthop 207.194.161.134. We've also tried
with and without md5 passwords.
I can also provide tcpdump log if it will help.
Sincerely,
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator
Re: Need help with OpenBGPd Configuration
Jason Ackley wrote: Do you have a valid route entry in your kernel routing tables point to the 64.114.173.22 via 207.194.161.134? The 'set nexthop' is used for modifying the BGP attributes, it does not in any way indicate which way the openbgpd host should use to get to the peer address.. This is not required in your configuration most likely. I hate to say it, but you may also want to look at upgraded to openbsd 3.8 with the latest openbgpd, as it is an area that has seen rapid development. You don't want to deploy mission-critical router and then be stuck running older software on it.. I have it working now. I had to restart the bgpd, my 'set nexthop statement' confused my system into thinking that the intermediate router was my BGP neighbor. Thanks for the advice. -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:888-246-4222 10 Years of Service Excellence! Visit us online at: www.netidea.com | www.netidea.biz
