On 10/8/07, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:36 PM 10/8/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> >Search thru the archives of this mailing list, look for 82573. There is
> >a DOS patcher that I have sent out a couple times. Its harmless to
> >run it, if the adapter is wrong or it doesnt need the p
At 08:36 PM 10/8/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
Search thru the archives of this mailing list, look for 82573. There is
a DOS patcher that I have sent out a couple times. Its harmless to
run it, if the adapter is wrong or it doesnt need the patch it should
tell you.
What it does it change a bit in the
On 10/8/07, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:36 PM 10/8/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
> >So the missed packets are only showing up on em2?
> Hi,
>
> Yes, but thats where all the packets come in.
>
> >Uh, and that is a management-capable 82573, one that is often a
> >problem witho
At 04:36 PM 10/8/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
So the missed packets are only showing up on em2?
Hi,
Yes, but thats where all the packets come in.
Uh, and that is a management-capable 82573, one that is often a
problem without the eeprom patched, did you do that sometime in
the past, I don
On 10/8/07, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:28 PM 10/5/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
> >I am preparing to update the em driver to the equivalent of my
> >6.6.6 driver. Just doing some last minute sanity checking, I
> >hope to the checkin before end of day.
>
> Hi,
> thanks for fix
Hello,
I am trying to diagnose an issue on a server I am trying to set up here.
The errors are quite cryptic and don't make any sense to me, they come up
about every 30 seconds while I am writing to the disks (at about 30MB/sec).
Errors:
Oct 8 15:44:02 server1 kernel:
g_vfs_done():mfid1[WRI
At 04:28 PM 10/5/2007, Jack Vogel wrote:
I am preparing to update the em driver to the equivalent of my
6.6.6 driver. Just doing some last minute sanity checking, I
hope to the checkin before end of day.
Hi,
thanks for fixing the compile issue, but I have another
possible problem. Do
At 2:00 PM -0500 10/8/07, Richard Todd wrote:
Jeff Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hey all,
I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performa
Jeff Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey all,
>
> I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
> having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
> night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performance drops
> like a rock. It still boots and
Jeff Kramer wrote:
At 6:56 PM +0200 10/8/07, Ivan Voras wrote:
Jeff Kramer wrote:
Hey all,
I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performance
At 6:56 PM +0200 10/8/07, Ivan Voras wrote:
Jeff Kramer wrote:
Hey all,
I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performance drops like
a rock.
Hello,
On 10/8/07, Jeff Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More weirdness, if I take out 4 gig of ram and only run with 4 total,
> the PAE kernel works fine.
Please don't top post, so we could track the thread :)
As Li said, you better for for AMD64 arch to enjoy the speed of your box.
--
R
More weirdness, if I take out 4 gig of ram and only run with 4 total,
the PAE kernel works fine.
At 11:23 AM -0500 10/8/07, Jeff Kramer wrote:
Hey all,
I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
n
Jeff Kramer wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
> having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
> night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performance drops like
> a rock. It still boots and everything still run
Jeff Kramer wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
> having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
> night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performance drops like
> a rock. It still boots and everything still run
Hey all,
I know that AMD64's the preferred way to run >4 gig systems, but I'm
having a weird situation with 6.2-RELEASE-p8 and 6-STABLE as of last
night. When I compile the PAE kernel, my system performance drops
like a rock. It still boots and everything still runs, but for
instance, runni
The Presence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a generic kernel on my FreeBSD 6.2 system, and I am getting
> errors regarding PMAP_SHPGPERPROC which is set at 201 (default).
The default value is 200.
> Because the system is a heavy load websever, this happens quite
> often. I want to calcu
17 matches
Mail list logo
