On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:19:33AM -0700, Paul Saab wrote:
> Emil:
> > Running today's RELENG_7 (although 7.0-RELEASE has the same problem),
> > GENERIC kernel on an amd64 and I can't seem to get a da(4) device for
> > any arrays bigger than 2TB.
>
> Please try the following patch:
>
> http://yogu
* Evren Yurtesen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> How do I see what process is sharing memory and how much memory?
Guessing is normally sufficient; typically it's processes with the same
name and similar size/res. On 7-STABLE you can use procstat -v to look
at the VM mappings for a process, but typi
Hello, freebsd-stable.
You wrote 16 мая 2008 г., 14:40:18:
>There is NO any firewalls on B. And, I repeat, it WORKS when I call
> mount_nfs directly in a moment!
Adding `-o -c' to mount (to pass `-c' to mount_nfs) helps. But I'm
very curious WHY mount_nfs, called directly, work WITHOUT `-c'..
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:14:14PM +0200, Willy Offermans wrote:
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/ar0s1a 20308398 230438 18453290 1%/
> devfs 11 0 100%/dev
> /dev/ar0s1d 21321454 3814482 1580125619%/us
Thomas Hurst wrote:
In either case, I already increased vm.pmap.shpgperproc to 2000 (from
200) and still the error occurs, there is not so much load on this
box, maybe there is a leak somewhere?
What sort of load is there? Do you have a bunch of big processes
sharing significant chunks of mem
* Evren Yurtesen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I guess one good question is, how can one see the number of PV entries
> used by a process? shouldnt these appear in the output of ipcs -a
> command?
No, PV entries are a VM thing, not limited to SysV IPC.
> Another good question is, in many places t
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 07:08:11PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
From man mount_udf (FreeBSD7)
HISTORY
The mount_udf utility first appeared in FreeBSD 5.0.
FreeBSD 7.0 March 23, 2002 FreeBSD
7.0
I have no idea for newfs_udf ,
Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 19:33 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko wrote:
I seem to be able to lock my machine by going into wpa_cli and asking it
to 'reassoc'. The reason for question mark after "hard" is that debug
information (caused by wland
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 07:08:11PM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
> From man mount_udf (FreeBSD7)
>
> HISTORY
> The mount_udf utility first appeared in FreeBSD 5.0.
>
> FreeBSD 7.0 March 23, 2002 FreeBSD
> 7.0
>
> I have no idea for newfs_udf , and what is
Zoran Kolic wrote:
Howdy!
What is the experience regarding udf on cd/dvd on 7.0?
I saw netbsd mail few days ago having those steps:
newfs_udf and mount_udf.
Best regards
From man mount_udf (FreeBSD7)
HISTORY
The mount_udf utility first appeared in FreeBSD 5.0.
FreeBSD 7.0
Howdy!
What is the experience regarding udf on cd/dvd on 7.0?
I saw netbsd mail few days ago having those steps:
newfs_udf and mount_udf.
Best regards
Zoran
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:37:56PM +0200, Willy Offermans wrote:
> > > sun# fsck /dev/ar0s1g
> > > ** /dev/ar0s1g
> > > ** Last Mounted on /share
> > > ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> > > INCORRECT BLOCK COUNT I=34788357 (272 should be 264)
> > > CORRECT? [yn] y
> > >
> > > INCORRECT BLOCK
Hello Kris,
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:43:24PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Willy Offermans wrote:
> >Hello Roland and FreeBSD friends,
> >
> >I'm sorry to be so quite for a while, but I went away for a vacation.
> >But now I'm back, I like to solve this issue.
> >
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at
Hello Jeremy and FreeBSD friends,
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:27:59AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:14:14PM +0200, Willy Offermans wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:10:47PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> > > Did you notice any file corruption in the filesystem on ar0s
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Main problem is, that "/etc/fstab" is processed by mount, and NFS
mount hangs up on boot, as shown above :(
Mounting with "mount -t nfs" with 7.0 server (host B) and 6.3 client
(host A) works...
--
// Lev Serebryakov
___
f
On Friday 16 May 2008 06:04:34 Rob Lytle wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I used Mergemaster. Thats what I mean't when I said that I carefully
> "merged" /usr/src/etc/ with /etc. But like I said, no files were
> replaced that contained my own configuration, e.g. group. I will say
> this- that I have alwa
On Friday 16 May 2008 06:17:24 Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> Additionally, mergemaster isn't a confusing mess. If anything, it's one
> of the most simple tools there is for managing /etc. The part you
> probably find "confusing", which is the same part I did when I started
> using it, is the side-b
How are the buckets used? Are they hashed per rule number or some
other mechanism? Nearly all of my states are from the same rule (eg,
on a mail server for the SMTP port rule).
How should I scale the buckets with the max rules? The default seems
to be 4096 rules and 256 buckets. Should
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
>
> As a matter of interest, do you know what the peak bandwidth usage is?
Based on the cvsupd log the peak is around 600KB/sec in and 360KB/sec out
at about 2am. The university's bandwidth accounting system says:
date hostin (MB)
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
You see? b answer with "UDP port unreachable" on each RPC reply!
Additional info.
ktrace from "mount -t nfs":
=
65962 mount_nfs 0.006679 RET sendto 40/0x28
65962 mount_nfs 0.006682 CALL
kevent(0x4,0x638
Hi,
I just moved my cfservd (a part of sysutils/cfengine) from a 6.2
server to a 7.0 server. Ever since, cfservd crashes regularly. The
backtrace is below, although obviously it is missing a lot. If anyone
has clues or suggestions, I'd really appreciate it.
# gdb /usr/local/sbin/cfservd c
Hi Everyone,
The FreeBSD Status Reports for the First Quarter of 2008 are now
available at:
http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2008-01-2008-03.html
Regards,
Brad Davis
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
Hi Marcel
Am 16.05.2008 um 12:53 schrieb Marcel Moolenaar:
On May 16, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Thomas Vogt wrote:
FreeBSD detects it with: "puc0:
port 0xe500-0xe51f,0xe520-0xe52f,0xe530-0xe537,0xe538-0xe53f,
0xe540-0xe547,0xe548-0xe54f irq 10 at device 14.0 on pci0" . But it
only adds 3 uart p
Willy Offermans wrote:
Hello Roland and FreeBSD friends,
I'm sorry to be so quite for a while, but I went away for a vacation.
But now I'm back, I like to solve this issue.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:10:47PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:04:03PM +0200, Willy Offermans
Hi,
I would like to know memory allocation problem eith zfs has been fixed
in -stable since the release of 7.0? Is zfs more "stable
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, s
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:14:14PM +0200, Willy Offermans wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:10:47PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> > Did you notice any file corruption in the filesystem on ar0s1g?
>
> No the two disks are brand new and I did not encounter any noticeable
> file corruption. However
Hello Roland and FreeBSD friends,
I'm sorry to be so quite for a while, but I went away for a vacation.
But now I'm back, I like to solve this issue.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:10:47PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:04:03PM +0200, Willy Offermans wrote:
> > Dear FreeBSD
I have two hosts: host A (FreeBSD 6.3-S) and host B (FreeBSD 7.0-S,
freshly installed).
Host A exports "/usr/ports" to host B via NFS.
Mount with "mount_nfs" works well:
b# mount_nfs a:/usr/ports /usr/ports
b# ls /usr/ports
[---SKIPPED---=
b#
But mount with "mount -t nfs" FAILS:
b#
On May 16, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Thomas Vogt wrote:
FreeBSD detects it with: "puc0:
port 0xe500-0xe51f,0xe520-0xe52f,0xe530-0xe537,0xe538-0xe53f,
0xe540-0xe547,0xe548-0xe54f irq 10 at device 14.0 on pci0" . But it
only adds 3 uart ports instead of 8. Any idea what i can do?
Can you try the
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:13:19AM -0700, Rob Lytle wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I noticed that most all of the files in my old /etc/rc.d had 555
> permissions. There were 4 or 5 that had 644 permissions in my old
> /etc/rc.d. What I am wondering is if all the files in rc.d should be
> 555? So far I
>> In earlier releases (5 and 6 at least) you couldn't create partitions
>> larger than 2 TB. I don't know whether work has been to circumvent
>> this in 7 but tools like fsck has to be changed as well. Have you
>> tried zfs?
>
> zfs has nothing to do with this. The driver is not properly dealing
Hello
I run FreeBSD 7-Stable on my soekris net 5501 with a "8 Port Timedia
Serial PCI Card". It's also know as SUNIX 4066 card.
My Kernel Config is like Generic exept this two added options:
options CPU_SOEKRIS
device puc
FreeBSD detects it with: "puc0:
port 0xe500-0xe51f
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Claus Guttesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Running today's RELENG_7 (although 7.0-RELEASE has the same problem),
> > GENERIC kernel on an amd64 and I can't seem to get a da(4) device for
> > any arrays bigger than 2TB.
>
> In earlier releases (5 and 6 at least)
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Paul Saab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Claus Guttesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> > Running today's RELENG_7 (although 7.0-RELEASE has the same problem),
>> > GENERIC kernel on an amd64 and I can't seem to get a da(4) device
> Running today's RELENG_7 (although 7.0-RELEASE has the same problem),
> GENERIC kernel on an amd64 and I can't seem to get a da(4) device for
> any arrays bigger than 2TB.
In earlier releases (5 and 6 at least) you couldn't create partitions
larger than 2 TB. I don't know whether work has been t
Hi all,
Running today's RELENG_7 (although 7.0-RELEASE has the same problem),
GENERIC kernel on an amd64 and I can't seem to get a da(4) device for
any arrays bigger than 2TB.
dmesg:
<...>
ciss0: port 0x4000-0x40ff mem 0xfdf0-0xfdff,0xfdef
-0xfdef0fff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci10
ci
Hi Jeremy,
I noticed that most all of the files in my old /etc/rc.d had 555
permissions. There were 4 or 5 that had 644 permissions in my old
/etc/rc.d. What I am wondering is if all the files in rc.d should be
555? So far I am not experiencing any problems with anything with a
very few 644 fil
Hi Jeremy,
You were correct. Somehow some files in /etc/rc.d had permissions of 644.
Setting the new permissions to that of the old fixed the problem. Thanks.
Rob.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:04:34PM -0700, Rob Lytl
38 matches
Mail list logo
