Why must you continue to respond to threads that you have no answer for,
wasting our bandwidth, disk space, and time to read your useless messages?
--Peter
c0ldbyte wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Omar Lopez Limonta wrote:
I Change:
net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_ack_lifetime: 300 -> 3600
net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_udp_
> I've seen them mentioned again in this thread. There apparently is a
> "make distribution" target designed to address /etc, but I can't find it
> anywhere.
cd /usr/src/etc
# This will create the standard directory hierarchy using mtree(8).
make DESTDIR=/jail distrib-dirs
# This will install a
< POSIX == SUSv3 these days.
Not quite. POSIX and SUSv3 use the same specification, but don't
require the same things. (Specifically, SUSv3 requires the XSI option
to be implemented.)
-GAWollman
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lis
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:09:50AM -0400, Rex Roof wrote:
> I'm running a FreeBSD6 machine current as of a few days ago and I'm
> working on a gvinum configuration, I couldn't find any place where it
> referenced gvinum on startup so after fussing around with the rc
> system a little, I wrote an /e
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Configuration differences for jails
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:43:59 +0200
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 07:39:08AM -0400, c0ldbyte wrote:
> Now if that last question is correct and thats the proccess you are
using
> # This will create the standard directory hierarchy using mtree(8).
> make DESTDIR=/jail distrib-dirs
For the record, I discovered the "hierarchy" make target in
/usr/src/Makefile.inc. I think we ought to use this one instead
on the internal distrib-dirs target.
--
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie a
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:29:10PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I think the first is more useful behavior than the last. Supporting it
> > should be exactly the same as supporting what happens if the actual
> > filesystem fills up. In this case, the filesystem is bei
Perhaps David Xu could clue me in a bit more :)
I just got around to reading the status report for FreeBSD and the 1:1
threading caught my eye.
I'm not terribly familiar with FreeBSD's KSE based threading but
rather than adding a new system call [which may be ok... though I've
worked on systems w
Hi,
> I am not very familar with mount_nullfs, but i think it is _one_ copy with
> _multiple_ references(FIXME).So if we modify something in one jail, the
> same effect will also impose on other jails,even the real machine. Due
> to this problem, readonly mounts may be a good choice.
Usually, /b
David Leimbach wrote:
Perhaps David Xu could clue me in a bit more :)
I just got around to reading the status report for FreeBSD and the 1:1
threading caught my eye.
I'm not terribly familiar with FreeBSD's KSE based threading but
rather than adding a new system call [which may be ok... though I'v
This happend on the freebsd-questions list, but I got no
answer for days. Joshua Tinnin advised me to make a try
here. I hope some of you can answer this:
On k, 2005-04-19 at 17:21 -0400, Paul Mather wrote:
> to what you describe using geom_gate for the remote component. See
> ggated(8) and ggat
On 4/22/05, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> David Leimbach wrote:
>
> >Perhaps David Xu could clue me in a bit more :)
> >
> >I just got around to reading the status report for FreeBSD and the 1:1
> >threading caught my eye.
> >
> >I'm not terribly familiar with FreeBSD's KSE ba
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:28:15AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> > Can you find any evidence that it's acceptable to interleave multiple
> > writers that are doing O_APPEND? At best, to do what you're asking,
> > they could be kept from being interleaved from the cont
13 matches
Mail list logo
