> > > Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd,
> > > like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
> >
> > I use MD5 auth for BGP sessions every day (and have been doing so for
> > several releases). One could definitely wish for better integration -
> > having to specify
> Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd,
> like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
I use MD5 auth for BGP sessions every day (and have been doing so for
several releases). One could definitely wish for better integration -
having to specify MD5 key both in /etc/ip
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:41 AM, wrote:
> > Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd,
> > like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
>
> I use MD5 auth for BGP sessions every day (and have been doing so for
> several releases). One could definitely wish for better inte
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 7/21/14, 7:27 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400
>>> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels
w
On 21/07/14 01:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Larry Rosenman"
> To: "Steven Hartland"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
>
>
>> On 2014-07-20 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote:
>>> Can you try revert
On 7/21/14, 7:27 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
all of that is true, but
On 7/20/14, 12:36 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
The vast majority of people don't know pf is outdated and broken on
FreeBSD because they don't know what they're missing and likely
aren't using IPv6 yet.
s/IPv6/pf/
Most people I talk to just use ipfw and couldn't care whether pf lives
or dies.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Mack"
To: "Steven Hartland"
Cc: ; ; "Larry Rosenman"
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Steven Hartland wrote:
I just updated to I think 268921 earlier today and this is th
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Mack"
To: "Steven Hartland"
Cc: ; ; "Larry Rosenman"
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Steven Hartland wrote:
I just updated to I think 268921 earlier today and this is th
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Hi!
And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the work.
No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change.
Franco Fichtner said he's interested in doing it. He probably
needs funding.
No one with authority has yet said
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Steven Hartland wrote:
I just updated to I think 268921 earlier today and this is the first
time I've had a panic (HEAD-268921 that is)
I'll try to get some more data if I can get it back up and running.
That doesn't look like a related trace tbh.
Regards
Steve
Aft
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Dan Mack"
I think I may have hit the same problem; I'm going to stay connected
to the console and see if it happens again; this is what I see
currently with the back-trace:
db> bt
Tracing pid 0 tid 100070 td 0xf
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Larry Rosenman"
To: "Steven Hartland"
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
On 2014-07-20 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote:
Can you try reverting r265321 an
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Mack"
I think I may have hit the same problem; I'm going to stay connected
to the console and see if it happens again; this is what I see
currently with the back-trace:
db> bt
Tracing pid 0 tid 100070 td 0xf8000e088920
kdb_enter() at kdb_enter+0x3
On 2014-07-20 18:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Larry Rosenman"
To: "Steven Hartland"
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
On 2014-07-20 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote:
Can you try reverting r265321 and
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Rosenman"
To: "Steven Hartland"
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
On 2014-07-20 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote:
Can you try reverting r265321 and see if you still see the
same crash?
Re
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400
> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
> > >> all of that is true, but you are missing the poin
On 2014-07-20 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote:
Can you try reverting r265321 and see if you still see the
same crash?
Regards
Steve
I'll do the revert, but it's been a ONE TIME hit.
There was a followup to mine with a reproducible poudriere crash like
mine.
--
Larry Rosenman
Can you try reverting r265321 and see if you still see the
same crash?
Regards
Steve
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr.
Noone needs to say "you can do X." You can just fork freebsd in
whatever form you want, update to the latest github and work to
eventually get it included. Or you could treat it as an entirely
external-from-system plugin module that you compile up - the packet
filter hooks API lets you do this rela
krad wrote:
> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two
> versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It
> confuses people, which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an
> conquer for other platforms. I really like the idea of the openpf
> version, tha
Hi!
> > And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the work.
> > No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change.
Franco Fichtner said he's interested in doing it. He probably
needs funding.
> No one with authority has yet said that "If an updated pf were available,
On Jul 20, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
> Rather they have said "An updated pf would not be
> suitable, as it would be incompatible with existing configuration files".
A major FreeBSD version increment is allowed to break that level of backwards
compatibility. Nothing prevents th
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Lars Engels wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of
pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people,
which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an
Something like following should allow you to get the zio details
assuming the compile has optimised it out:
cd /var/crash
kgdb /boot/kernel/kernel /var/crash/vmcore.5
kgdb> frame 5
kgdb> print zio
Regards
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Rosenman"
To: "Steven Hartland"
On 2014-07-20 14:18, Steven Hartland wrote:
Can you provide the details of the zio which caused the panic?
Also does any of your pools support trim?
No, on the trim. Can you walk me through getting the zio you need?
Regards
Steve
- Original Message - From: "Larry Rosenman"
Can you provide the details of the zio which caused the panic?
Also does any of your pools support trim?
Regards
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Rosenman"
To: ;
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
Got the following pan
krad writes:
Hi,
> I really like the idea of the openpf version, that has been mentioned
> in this thread.
It would be nice but as it's been written in this thread, Open & Free
internals are quite different beasts, goals are different on both
platforms, so I doubt OpenPF will exist in the futur
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
> >> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two
> >> versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a b
On 7/20/2014 at 5:38 PM Franco Fichtner wrote:
|On 20 Jul 2014, at 15:39, Mike. wrote:
|
|> imho, the root problem here is that an effort to implement a
single
|> feature improvement (multi-threading) has caused the FreeBSD
version
|> of pf to apparently reach a near-unmaintainable position in th
On 20/07/14 16:03, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Panic String: solaris assert: !(zio->io_flags & ZIO_FLAG_DELEGATED),
> file: /usr/src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zio.c,
> line: 2874
>
> Unread portion of the kernel message buffer: panic: solaris assert:
> !(zio->io_flags & ZIO_FLA
On 20 Jul 2014, at 15:39, Mike. wrote:
> imho, the root problem here is that an effort to implement a single
> feature improvement (multi-threading) has caused the FreeBSD version
> of pf to apparently reach a near-unmaintainable position in the
> FreeBSD community because improvements from OpenB
On 7/19/2014 at 9:36 PM Darren Pilgrim wrote:
|On 7/18/2014 6:51 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote:
| [snip]
|
|
|All because over half a decade ago some folks got all butthurt over
a
|config file format change.
=
I'm juggling two formats for specifying NIC configurations in
rc.conf, one o
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:15:36AM -0400, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
> >> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of
> >> pf on the bsd's at the user level, is
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
>> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of
>> pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people,
>> which puts them off. Its a classic
Got the following panic overnight (I think while a nightly rsync was running):
Dump header from device /dev/gpt/swap0
Architecture: amd64
Architecture Version: 2
Dump Length: 8122101760B (7745 MB)
Blocksize: 512
Dumptime: Sun Jul 20 03:22:18 2014
Hostname: borg.lerctr.org
Magic: Free
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of
> pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people,
> which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an conquer for other
> platforms. I really
all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of
pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people,
which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an conquer for other
platforms. I really like the idea of the openpf version, that has been
mentioned i
On 7/18/2014 1:18 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 7/18/14, 6:28 AM, Allan Jude wrote:
On 2014-07-17 16:12, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 17 July 2014 13:03, Alberto Mijares wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
Hi!
3) The binary packages need to work out of the box
4) .. whi
39 matches
Mail list logo
