Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Alexander Motin schrieb am 29.03.2010 21:25 (localtime):
>> If you wish to send drive - my address is:
>
> Can you use such a drive? I mean for yourself. If yes, then I'll ship
> it, but if you say "na, thanks, no such crap" then I don't want to waste
> your time and h
Alexander Motin schrieb am 29.03.2010 21:25 (localtime):
Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
I have the drives now running in another server, ich7 chipset.
Using UFS, the complete machine locks up for ~30 secs with disk load of
3.5MB/s. But I don't get any timeout messages and the machine always
recovere
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 05:57:45PM +0200, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Jonathan Feally wrote:
> > Attila Nagy wrote:
> >> Bingo, this solved the problem. The current uptime nears four days.
> >> Previously I couldn't go further than a day.
> >>
> >> The machine gets very light TCP load (and
> 30.03.10, 14:03, "Daniel Braniss" :
>
> > > On 30.03.2010 12:05, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > > > so it seems that someone is preventing changes to the partition table!
> > > > btw, this problem was not present in older boot0 (1.0) where the active
> > > > partition flag is ignored.
> > >
> >
Attila Nagy wrote:
Bingo, this solved the problem. The current uptime nears four days.
Previously I couldn't go further than a day.
The machine gets very light TCP load (and other machines which get work
well), so I guess it's UDP RX or TX checksum related
I also have had my network g
Jonathan Feally wrote:
> Attila Nagy wrote:
>> Bingo, this solved the problem. The current uptime nears four days.
>> Previously I couldn't go further than a day.
>>
>> The machine gets very light TCP load (and other machines which
>> get work
>> well), so I guess it's UDP R
In message <73161269963...@web103.yandex.ru>,
Andrey V. Elsukov (bu7c...@yandex.ru) wrote:
> 30.03.10, 14:03, "Daniel Braniss" :
>
> > > On 30.03.2010 12:05, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > > > so it seems that someone is preventing changes to the partition table!
> > > > btw, this problem was
30.03.10, 14:03, "Daniel Braniss" :
> > On 30.03.2010 12:05, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > > so it seems that someone is preventing changes to the partition table!
> > > btw, this problem was not present in older boot0 (1.0) where the active
> > > partition flag is ignored.
> >
> > You can chang
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:45:09AM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> >I recently brought up rpc.lockd and rpc.statd on all of our NFS clients
> >(mixed RELENG_6, RELENG_7, and RELENG_8), and our NFS server (RELENG_8).
> >
> >All clients had nfs_clie
On 3/30/10 9:30 AM, jhell wrote:
Ill mark this up on my todo. Thanks for the feedback& I should have
something committed back within the next couple days, possibly even tonight.
I never recalculated for this difference as that area of the code was
just a formatting fix.
But as Jeremy has point
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I recently brought up rpc.lockd and rpc.statd on all of our NFS clients
(mixed RELENG_6, RELENG_7, and RELENG_8), and our NFS server (RELENG_8).
All clients had nfs_client_enable="yes" in rc.conf prior to their last
reboot, but lacked rpcbind_enable
On 03/29/2010 10:43, Barry Pederson wrote:
> I've been using the arc_summary.pl script from here:
>
> http://jhell.googlecode.com/svn/base/head/scripts/zfs/arc_summary/arc_summary.pl
>
>
> and noticed some odd numbers, with the ARC Current Size being larger
> than the Max Size, and the breakdown
on 30/03/2010 01:26 M. Vale said the following:
> Hi, on FreeBSD 8.0 (i386 or AMD64) if we configure to use quotas on root
> partition.
>
> It stops on boot with the following message:
>
> Trying to mount root from ufs:/dev/ad0s1a
> mount option is unknown
> mount option is unknown
> ROOT MOUNT
> On 30.03.2010 12:05, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > so it seems that someone is preventing changes to the partition table!
> > btw, this problem was not present in older boot0 (1.0) where the active
> > partition flag is ignored.
>
> You can change active partition via gpart(8).
>
Hi Andrey,
I'm sor
On 30.03.2010 12:05, Daniel Braniss wrote:
so it seems that someone is preventing changes to the partition table!
btw, this problem was not present in older boot0 (1.0) where the active
partition flag is ignored.
You can change active partition via gpart(8).
--
WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
_
Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:21:42PM +0200, Attila Nagy wrote:
>
>> Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:57:59PM +0200, Attila Nagy wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hi,
Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On Thursday, March 2
hi,
I have a this SBC that boots off a CF card,
when it boots, I can select the boot partition via F1 or F2
and all is OK.
when I do it via boot0cfg the 'default_selection' changes
correctly, but the 'active' partition is not changed, so boot
ignores it.
I went ahead and cha
17 matches
Mail list logo
