On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Chris Wagner wrote:
> I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
It's sad and (sometimes) funny, that I have to work with those people ;)
We are just changing our admin. He was a real mistake :|
Now it's all funny for me, but It costed me time, lots of time...
> >It' solved, there were 2
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Chris Wagner wrote:
> I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
It's sad and (sometimes) funny, that I have to work with those people ;)
We are just changing our admin. He was a real mistake :|
Now it's all funny for me, but It costed me time, lots of time...
> >It' solved, there were
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
At 05:18 PM 6/3/01 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>> > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc
>> > Se
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!!
At 05:18 PM 6/3/01 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>> > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
>> >
>> > czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
>> > Segme
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc
> > Segmentation fault
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
> some possible causes:
>
> 1. bad memory
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
> >
> > czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
> > Segmentation fault
> > czajnik@earth:~$
>
> some possible causes:
>
> 1. bad memory - most
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc
> Segmentation fault
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller c
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
he means you need to give your pigeons some time to
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
>
> czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
> Segmentation fault
> czajnik@earth:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
he means you need to give your pigeons some time t
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> > >
> > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
> >
> >
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian c
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
>
> http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was
sent, and comparng it to the system time the reply arrived ?
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
> Look at this:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
> PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 156.17.20
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> > >
> > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
> >
> >
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
>
> http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was
sent, and comparng it to the system time the reply arrived ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote:
>
> I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
> "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
> isn't MP-safe.
Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :).
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
> Look at this:
>
> czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
> PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
"Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Ken Seefried, CISSP
Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes:
Look at this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote:
>
> I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
> "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
> isn't MP-safe.
Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Look at this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
"Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Ken Seefried, CISSP
Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes:
>
> Look at this:
>
> czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
> PING 156.17.209.1 (1
Look at this:
czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms
24 matches
Mail list logo
