Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
Hi Ryan, Intriging thinking there! Thanks! A. On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Ryan McBride wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 10:03:20AM -0700, Austin Hook wrote: > > Thanks for the pointer to some "stable" binaries, however it's too old for > > me. I guess I will try with current snapshot and build stable 4.1 if I > > need it. > > If the problem is entirely a kernel issue, until 4.2-beta you should be > able to boot from -current install media but install a 4.1-release > userland with a 4.1-current kernel. Boot the system, then download your > -stable source and build a -stable kernel with the fix in it. > > Or just run the -current snapshot :-)
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 10:03:20AM -0700, Austin Hook wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to some "stable" binaries, however it's too old for > me. I guess I will try with current snapshot and build stable 4.1 if I > need it. If the problem is entirely a kernel issue, until 4.2-beta you should be able to boot from -current install media but install a 4.1-release userland with a 4.1-current kernel. Boot the system, then download your -stable source and build a -stable kernel with the fix in it. Or just run the -current snapshot :-)
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
Thanks for the pointer to some "stable" binaries, however it's too old for me. I guess I will try with current snapshot and build stable 4.1 if I need it. Austin
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
On Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 09:17:48 -0700, Austin Hook wrote: >Hey Chris, > >It's of interest that, when there is a problem even booting up, the patch >branch is not that useful for the ordinary user who doesn't yet have a >separate machine to do a build on, and to make a "release" with. > >The patch branch has no associated set of binaries to download, or iso >boot image to get started with. And no previous release works with this >machine. There are regular builds of the stable tree made available at ftp://ftp.su.se/pub/mirrors/openbsd_stable/ But that's not an official part of the project, just a build by some enthousiasts (I'm one of them). Perhaps usefull to test or to get started and build a release for yourself when the machine is up and running. Maurice
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
Hey Chris, It's of interest that, when there is a problem even booting up, the patch branch is not that useful for the ordinary user who doesn't yet have a separate machine to do a build on, and to make a "release" with. The patch branch has no associated set of binaries to download, or iso boot image to get started with. And no previous release works with this machine. Austin On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Chris Kuethe wrote: > On 7/3/07, Austin Hook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > >Thanks! > > > >What kind of an issue was it? You just had to increase the > > VM_PHYSSEG_MAX definition, or was that a misdirection? > > Just had to increase VM_PHYSSEG_MAX. > > >BTW, way, how long does it take for such patches to show up in either > > the 4.1 or patch branch corrections lists on the web site? > > That's a manual process to put patches and errata up. It wasn't clear > that we needed to actually issue a separate patch for this, since we > haven't heard of very many machines being affected by this... only two > reported machines so far that need more than 5 segments. > > CK > > -- > GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
On 7/3/07, Austin Hook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks! What kind of an issue was it? You just had to increase the VM_PHYSSEG_MAX definition, or was that a misdirection? Just had to increase VM_PHYSSEG_MAX. BTW, way, how long does it take for such patches to show up in either the 4.1 or patch branch corrections lists on the web site? That's a manual process to put patches and errata up. It wasn't clear that we needed to actually issue a separate patch for this, since we haven't heard of very many machines being affected by this... only two reported machines so far that need more than 5 segments. CK -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
Hi Chris, Thanks! What kind of an issue was it? You just had to increase the VM_PHYSSEG_MAX definition, or was that a misdirection? Austin BTW, way, how long does it take for such patches to show up in either the 4.1 or patch branch corrections lists on the web site? Austin On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Chris Kuethe wrote: > On 6/29/07, Austin Hook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Trying to set up a fairly heavy duty web server I encountered boot > > problems with this fairly new machine using the release CD ROM. Using the > > -c command at the boot prompt I already see error messages, before it > > gives me the UKC> ... > > > > UVM_PAGE_PHYSLOAD: unable to load physical memory segment > > 5 segments allocated, ignoring 0x7fa9a -> 0x7fad0 > > Increase VM_PHYSSEG_MAX > > > > and repeats this two more times for ranges like: > >0x7fb1a -> 0x7fb2c > > I just committed a patch to 4.0-stable and 4.1-stable which may help. > > CK > > -- > GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Intel xeon fails to boot with 4.1 release
On 6/29/07, Austin Hook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Trying to set up a fairly heavy duty web server I encountered boot problems with this fairly new machine using the release CD ROM. Using the -c command at the boot prompt I already see error messages, before it gives me the UKC> ... UVM_PAGE_PHYSLOAD: unable to load physical memory segment 5 segments allocated, ignoring 0x7fa9a -> 0x7fad0 Increase VM_PHYSSEG_MAX and repeats this two more times for ranges like: 0x7fb1a -> 0x7fb2c I just committed a patch to 4.0-stable and 4.1-stable which may help. CK -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
