On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 10:24:05PM -0800, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> On Thursday 23 December 2004 09:59 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:42:37PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > > >run make fetchindex not make fetch index from /usr/ports
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, why is
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:27, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > Because the way we used to do it required tremendous churn in the
> > CVS repository. And it was _still_ out of date.
>
> We in user land don't see that end of things :) Why does INDEX have to
> go into the CVS repository anyways? Guess that
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:13, Mark Linimon wrote:
> There's really quite a bit of email in the mailing list archives
> about why this was done. The short summary is that in the short
> run there is some pain but in the long run this is a win for the
> project, and the users.
IMHO it would have been
On Thursday 23 December 2004 10:43 pm, you wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > Way back when, I used to get the INDEX when running cvsup unless
> > I put it in the refuse file. Of coarse it was old and useless so
> > one was better off building their own INDEX. So why cant w
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> Way back when, I used to get the INDEX when running cvsup unless
> I put it in the refuse file. Of coarse it was old and useless so one was
> better off building their own INDEX. So why cant we just receive the
> INDEX like we used to, but unlike
# cd /usr/ports && make index-> failure?
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Thursday 23 December 2004 09:59 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:42:37PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > >run make fetchindex not make fetch index from /usr/ports
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why isn't the index included in the update
> > normally?
>
> It changes dozens of t
On Thursday 23 December 2004 09:42 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 December 2004 08:50 pm, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> >> These days it is best to run make fetch index from /usr/ports
> >> after you've run cvsup rather than build INDEX-5
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:42:37PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> >run make fetchindex not make fetch index from /usr/ports
>
> Out of curiosity, why isn't the index included in the update normally?
It changes dozens of times per day, and the deltas would be enormous.
Kris
pgpxowY2MltXM.pgp
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
On Thursday 23 December 2004 08:50 pm, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
These days it is best to run make fetch index from /usr/ports
after you've run cvsup rather than build INDEX-5 for yourself.
-Mike
correction:
run make fetchindex not make fetch index from
On Thursday 23 December 2004 08:50 pm, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
>
> These days it is best to run make fetch index from /usr/ports
> after you've run cvsup rather than build INDEX-5 for yourself.
>
> -Mike
correction:
run make fetchindex not make fetch index from /usr/ports
__
- Original Message -
From: "Michael C. Shultz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: portsdb and portupgrade causes errors
> On Thursday 23 December 2004 08:37 pm, whitevamp wrote:
> > i dont know weathere this place to be posting this to or no
On Thursday 23 December 2004 08:37 pm, whitevamp wrote:
> i dont know weathere this place to be posting this to or not .. if
> not point me in the right direction to go..
>
> i have just updated my system to 5.3 frrom 4.9 and now every time i
> goto run portsdb , or portupgrade iget the same error
i dont know weathere this place to be posting this to or not .. if not point
me in the right direction to go..
i have just updated my system to 5.3 frrom 4.9 and now every time i goto run
portsdb , or portupgrade iget the same error message.and i also have a nother
5.3 box that was a fresh ins
Why is mmap() disabled for ad/da devices? Both drivers use a "nommap"
entry, in 4.x, 5.x and 6.x. Is there a problem in mmapping disks and
partitions or has the code not been written?
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam
_
Bartosz Fabianowski wrote:
> I posted this question a few days ago, but it got lost in a thread I fear.
>
> With the recent changes to bsd.cpu.mk, the setting "CPUTYPE=pentium-m"
> in make.conf now gets picked up and leads to GCC flags being set
> accordingly. Unfortunately, something gets enabled
Martin wrote:
Hi,
today I've compiled new world and kernel. Last kernel was
from November, I think.
The platform is amd64, mainboard Gigabyte K8VNXP. I'm
talking about -STABLE here (RELENG_5 tag).
(I've deleted /usr/obj before making world and used
the usual procedure to update.)
After reboot, re(4
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Robert Watson:
Could you use a tool like netperf to see whether the slowdown is specific
to TCP, or affects UDP also? There have been some TCP tweaks and
bugfixes, and this would help isolate that. Seeing the results of a
netperf run with the UDP_RR and UDP_STREAM tes
Hi list,
I posted this question a few days ago, but it got lost in a thread I fear.
With the recent changes to bsd.cpu.mk, the setting "CPUTYPE=pentium-m"
in make.conf now gets picked up and leads to GCC flags being set
accordingly. Unfortunately, something gets enabled that the Pentium M
(actua
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 11:49:50AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to dig up a problem. A server I have running 201 jails with a
> total of ~2200 processes gets about every five minutes:
>
> "maxproc limit exceeded by uid 2, please see tuning(7) and login.conf(5)"
>
> First of
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 02:24:18PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Due to limitations in the standard 'linksys/dlink/netgear' routers, as far
> as firewalls are concerned, last night I setup one of my 5.3-STABLE boxes
> as being the gateway ... unless I've set something up wrong, 'blows
> ch
Hi,
today I've compiled new world and kernel. Last kernel was
from November, I think.
The platform is amd64, mainboard Gigabyte K8VNXP. I'm
talking about -STABLE here (RELENG_5 tag).
(I've deleted /usr/obj before making world and used
the usual procedure to update.)
After reboot, re(4) "Realte
Robert Watson:
> Could you use a tool like netperf to see whether the slowdown is specific
> to TCP, or affects UDP also? There have been some TCP tweaks and
> bugfixes, and this would help isolate that. Seeing the results of a
> netperf run with the UDP_RR and UDP_STREAM tests in the "before" a
On Thursday 23 December 2004 18:24, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Due to limitations in the standard 'linksys/dlink/netgear' routers,
> as far as firewalls are concerned, last night I setup one of my
> 5.3-STABLE boxes as being the gateway ... unless I've set something
> up wrong, 'blows chunks' is wha
Hello,
we have performance problem with 3Ware 7506LP RAID5. For example if we
execute rsync for large array of data, then
'systat -vmstat' shows 100% load on twed0, and many other processes
wait disk I/O.
Also, which SATA RAID controller would you recomend for
Samba/Courier-IMAP server for comp
Due to limitations in the standard 'linksys/dlink/netgear' routers, as far
as firewalls are concerned, last night I setup one of my 5.3-STABLE boxes
as being the gateway ... unless I've set something up wrong, 'blows
chunks' is what comes to mind :(
The machine:
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2
Well, this is unexpected. I enabled the debugging options as instructed
(INVARIANT_SUPPORT, INVARIANTS, WITNESS, DDB, GDB), rebooted and then
I got this next time I booted:
KDB: debugger backends: ddb
KDB: current backend: ddb
Copyright (c) 1992-2004 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980,
At 06:53 AM 23/12/2004, Igor Robul wrote:
Hello,
we have performance problem with 3Ware 7506LP RAID5. For example if we
execute rsync for large array of data, then
'systat -vmstat' shows 100% load on twed0, and many other processes wait
disk I/O.
Also, which SATA RAID controller would you recome
Thanks for the detailed instructions, both of you. I'll see that I can
collect some information next time this happens (I can't really reproduce
it, it just happens about once a week).
> What still works when the system is frozen? Can you switch VTYs? Do\
> ping's work (from another system)?
Hello Hideki,
Creating symbolic links with libaries is not the recommended way to make
programms working. Sooner or later this method will entail new problems. The
port misc/compat4x installs the missing libc.so.4. Alternatively install it
with "pkg_add -r compat4x-i386-5.3".
Best regards
BjÃr
Hello,
we have performance problem with 3Ware 7506LP RAID5. For example if we
execute rsync for large array of data, then
'systat -vmstat' shows 100% load on twed0, and many other processes wait
disk I/O.
Also, which SATA RAID controller would you recomend for
Samba/Courier-IMAP server for comp
Hi,
I'm trying to dig up a problem. A server I have running 201 jails with a
total of ~2200 processes gets about every five minutes:
"maxproc limit exceeded by uid 2, please see tuning(7) and login.conf(5)"
First of all, uid 2 has only a few sendmail processes running (postfix
alias for sendmail)
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> After updating my 5.3-STABLE/alpha from Dec 4 to Dec 22 on RELENG_5,
> network _receiving_ throughput on its re(4) interface has collapsed to a
> maximum of 0.5-1.0 MB/s. (Figures from scp. Yes, I realize this is not
> the most suitable test, b
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> I'm having a Problem with FreeBSD 5.3 here. The system slowly freezes.
>
> It starts with one application that just locks up. Other applications
> still work, but when I switch to them and do stuff in them, they usually
> lock up after a few seconds
Hi, I tried to install 5.3 on my HP/Compaq nx9105 ant saw the same symptoms as
David Johnson.
I also tried your 1), 2) and 3) options without success (immediate shutdown).
---
Seems to be a widely suffered ACPI
On Thu, 2004-Dec-23 04:08:39 +0100, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
>I'm having a Problem with FreeBSD 5.3 here. The system slowly freezes.
>
>It starts with one application that just locks up. Other applications
>still work, but when I switch to them and do stuff in them, they usually
>lock up after a few
36 matches
Mail list logo
