On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Charlie Martin wrote:
>
>
> On 2011-09-01 11:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll grant this is probably a horrid noob question, but then on the
>>> Free kernel I'm a horrid noob so I guess it mak
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Charlie Martin wrote:
> okay, dmesg begins to give a clue. Here's a question: if this FreeBSD 8 is
> being built on a FreeBSD 7 machine, would that account for it?
The problem is that you only have built some -- not all -- of the
modules required for dtraceall
okay, dmesg begins to give a clue. Here's a question: if this FreeBSD 8
is being built on a FreeBSD 7 machine, would that account for it?
On 2011-09-01 11:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Martin wrote:
Okay, I'll grant this is probably a horrid noob question,
On 2011-09-01 11:23, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Martin wrote:
Okay, I'll grant this is probably a horrid noob question, but then on the
Free kernel I'm a horrid noob so I guess it makes sense. This is for
FreeBSD
FreeBSD psmdev1 8.1-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 8.1-
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Martin wrote:
> Okay, I'll grant this is probably a horrid noob question, but then on the
> Free kernel I'm a horrid noob so I guess it makes sense. This is for
> FreeBSD
>
> FreeBSD psmdev1 8.1-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p2
>
> per uname -a.
>
> We hav
2011/9/1 Ivan Voras :
> On 1 September 2011 16:11, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
>>> I mean, if we have 2 cpus in a machine, but MAXCPU is set to 256, there
>>> is a bunch of "lost" memory and higher levels of lock contention?
>>>
>>> I thought that attilio was taking a stab at enhancing this, but at the
>
Okay, I'll grant this is probably a horrid noob question, but then on
the Free kernel I'm a horrid noob so I guess it makes sense. This is
for FreeBSD
FreeBSD psmdev1 8.1-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p2
per uname -a.
We have a FreeBSD based product on the AMD64 architecture; I'm trying to
- Original Message -
From: John Baldwin
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Cc: rank1see...@gmail.com, Craig Rodrigues
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:24:01 -0400
Subject: Re: BUG: Entries in fstab with 'late' option, require order, with ntfs
and ufs
> On Monday, August 29, 2011 2:08:46 pm rank1s
On 1 September 2011 16:11, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> I mean, if we have 2 cpus in a machine, but MAXCPU is set to 256, there
>> is a bunch of "lost" memory and higher levels of lock contention?
>>
>> I thought that attilio was taking a stab at enhancing this, but at the
>> current time anything more
--On 01 September 2011 07:45 -0500 Mark Felder wrote:
Is it OK to run smartmontools / smartd / smartctl against the underlying
adX devices, whilst ar0 is in use?
Yes. :-)
Thanks :-) I'll look for other reasons why one of the machines mysteriously
locked up with everything hung in 'ufs' [
On 9/1/2011 8:17 AM, rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
Works excellent!
I boot it from USB stick.
Now I added ~150 MB of ports to it.
From that point on, it doesn't boot on all machines.
Booting 2 times in a row on laptop with 4 gb ram:
http://www.starforce.biz/md_root_1.jpg
http://www.starforce.bi
2011/8/31 Sean Bruno :
> On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 17:11 -0700, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> On 29.8.2011. 20:15, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> > However, the SRAT code just ignores the table when it encounters an issue
>> > like
>> > this, it doesn't hang. Something else later in the boot must have hung.
>>
>>
Works excellent!
I boot it from USB stick.
Now I added ~150 MB of ports to it.
From that point on, it doesn't boot on all machines.
Booting 2 times in a row on laptop with 4 gb ram:
http://www.starforce.biz/md_root_1.jpg
http://www.starforce.biz/md_root_2.jpg
Without ports, it did booted fine!
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 07:28:37 -0500, Karl Pielorz
wrote:
Is it OK to run smartmontools / smartd / smartctl against the underlying
adX devices, whilst ar0 is in use?
Yes. :-)
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mai
Hi,
I posted this question in -Questions about a week ago, and didn't get any
replies :(
I'm just trying to check - we have a number of 8.2-STABLE amd64 systems
where the onboard RAID shows up as '/dev/ar0' (which we use for
filesystems, i.e. /dev/ar0s1d et'al), and the underlying devices f
15 matches
Mail list logo
