Hello openbsd.misc,
please ignore this, if it is redundant;
I would like to report missing libevent.so.4.1 from amd64 snapshot from 4/3/14
15:10:00 as seen on ftp.eu.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64
the SHA256 of the downloaded matches the value in SHA256 file
SHA256 (install55.iso
Whoops, I just noticed the PPPoE link.
You might try manually overriding the default route to see if that solves your
problem.
I'm sorry I don't remember the exact syntax needed to do this offhand.
I know under Linux it would be "route add default dev tun0", but I'm not sure
of the OpenBSD syntax
It appears, at first glance, that your default route is incorrect.
Is your external IP address assigned statically or by DHCP?
If statically, then you will want to edit /etc/mygate to set your default route
correctly.
(Also, are you really running OpenBSD version 4.1, and if so, why???)
-Adam
On
Hello to all, I had try to set up openbsd as home router but eventually it
fail to function properly.
External Interface (vr0)
192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0 none
Internal Interface (rl0)
172.16.10.1 255.255.255.0 none
Wireless Interface (ath0)
192.168.5.1 255.255.255.0 none
*Routing Table* (route s
On 07/02/14 8:46 AM, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
On 07/02/14 01:54, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
This is probably the time where most people would recommend against
that since it is essentially a complete reinstall of all items to upgrade
from pre-5.5 to 5.5 due to time_t ABI change.
Chris
Sorry bu
On 07/02/14 01:54, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
This is probably the time where most people would recommend against
that since it is essentially a complete reinstall of all items to upgrade
from pre-5.5 to 5.5 due to time_t ABI change.
Chris
Sorry but isn't the ABI time_t change
http://www.openbsd.
On 2014-02-06, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Kenneth Westerback [kwesterb...@gmail.com] wrote:
>>
>> And, surprise!, boot blocks do change. 5.5 will be an example as things are
>> rearranged and unified.
>>
>
> But you can still use old bootblocks to run the new kernel as a bootstrap
You can, but B
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:54:17PM -0800, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> >
> > It never hurts to be careful. And backup everything before you turn off
> > those disks since they are old. Old disks keep running but often can't
> > restart from a stop.
>
> Yeah keep backups any of this crazy stuff will d
Chris Bennett [chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:56:05AM -0600, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm recommending isn't really an upgrade so much as using the old
> > > box to bootstrap a newest snapshot. As l
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014, at 04:07 PM, Chris Bennett wrote:
> It never hurts to be careful. And backup everything before you turn off
> those disks since they are old. Old disks keep running but often can't
> restart from a stop.
If for some reason you do find yourself with disks that will not spin up
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:56:05AM -0600, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>
> > What I'm recommending isn't really an upgrade so much as using the old
> > box to bootstrap a newest snapshot. As long as the bootblocks are still
> > compatible, you can do it.
> >
>
y understanding what they're doing and this is not very
> complex at all.
>
There are some complexities, and I have most of them memorized, so if someone
wants to discuss how to do this on the list, just ask.
I dare say this instruction set will even work for a jump from 4.1, althou
Back to reality... Let's suppose I have very old OpenBSD box
like it was written.
Usually data should be OK (ftp data, web data, DB data dump??...), but can
I just copy for example /etc/master.passwd to a new fresh installed 5.5-current?
I'm asking because one had to regenerate /etc/{pwd,spwd}.db
Kenneth Westerback [kwesterb...@gmail.com] wrote:
>
> And, surprise!, boot blocks do change. 5.5 will be an example as things are
> rearranged and unified.
>
But you can still use old bootblocks to run the new kernel as a bootstrap
You don't get the proper random seed functionality until you up
L. V. Lammert [l...@omnitec.net] wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>
> > I don't see why everyone recommends "install one version at a time".
> >
> It's not a recommendation, it is reality. Each upgrade is based on the
> previuos version - skipping versions is not supported.
>
Your best option would be to backup data and configs, and reinstall fresh.
There are so many releases between 4.1 and 5.4 that you're going to spend a
lot of time just to get to -current or -stable 5.4, while you're still
gonna have to modify config files that have changes since 4
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 13:03, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Marc Espie wrote:
>
>> Nah, if you know what you're doing you can skip lots of versions.
>> It's not recommmended because if you fuck up, well, you're on your own.
>>
> The OP gave no such indication, .. hence my recommendat
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Marc Espie wrote:
> Nah, if you know what you're doing you can skip lots of versions.
> It's not recommmended because if you fuck up, well, you're on your own.
>
The OP gave no such indication, .. hence my recommendation for
step-by-step or new machine.
> Developers will laugh
On 6 February 2014 12:40, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> L. V. Lammert [l...@omnitec.net] wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, davy wrote:
>>
>> > Can I do a 4.1 -> 5.4 in one shot?
>> >
>> Nope. One version at a time, .. though the better solution would be to do
>
On 6 February 2014 12:40, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> L. V. Lammert [l...@omnitec.net] wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, davy wrote:
>>
>> > Can I do a 4.1 -> 5.4 in one shot?
>> >
>> Nope. One version at a time, .. though the better solution would be to do
>
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:45:52AM -0600, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>
> > I don't see why everyone recommends "install one version at a time".
> >
> It's not a recommendation, it is reality. Each upgrade is based on the
> previuos version - skipping versions
On 6 February 2014 12:31, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
>
>> Well, that would imply waiting for May 1 or whenever the physical CD's
>> are available.
>>
> 5.4 is available now, ..
>
>> Starting now with a -current snapshot means getting everything working
>>
On 06/02/14 12:45 PM, L. V. Lammert wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
I don't see why everyone recommends "install one version at a time".
It's not a recommendation, it is reality. Each upgrade is based on the
previuos version - skipping versions is not supported.
There is a
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> What I'm recommending isn't really an upgrade so much as using the old
> box to bootstrap a newest snapshot. As long as the bootblocks are still
> compatible, you can do it.
>
Why? A clean build on a new machine would be the best solution in that
case,
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> I don't see why everyone recommends "install one version at a time".
>
It's not a recommendation, it is reality. Each upgrade is based on the
previuos version - skipping versions is not supported.
Lee
L. V. Lammert [l...@omnitec.net] wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, davy wrote:
>
> > Can I do a 4.1 -> 5.4 in one shot?
> >
> Nope. One version at a time, .. though the better solution would be to do
> a fresh install and copy data.
>
What I'm recommending isn&#
L. V. Lammert [l...@omnitec.net] wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, davy wrote:
>
> > Can I do a 4.1 -> 5.4 in one shot?
> >
> Nope. One version at a time, .. though the better solution would be to do
> a fresh install and copy data.
>
I don't see why everyone r
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> Well, that would imply waiting for May 1 or whenever the physical CD's
> are available.
>
5.4 is available now, ..
> Starting now with a -current snapshot means getting everything working
> in the meantime and then ordering the new CD's and installi
On 6 February 2014 11:44, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
>
>> Shudder. NO! :-)
>>
>> Aside from the very valid hardware concerns Nick mentioned, there are
>> too many flag days of various kinds strewn along that path. Skip them
>> all, start fresh with a -curr
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kenneth Westerback wrote:
> Shudder. NO! :-)
>
> Aside from the very valid hardware concerns Nick mentioned, there are
> too many flag days of various kinds strewn along that path. Skip them
> all, start fresh with a -current
> snapshot.
>
Much better to start with new CD set,
Heck, even pkg_add won't be too happy.
I've finally scraped a few compatibility items that were around 7 years
ago, like support for @md5 checksums...
d to take over the maintenance of an old OpenBSD
> machine, which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
>
> Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1. It has
> been a while since I worked with OpenBSD (shame on me), and I'm really not
> sure wha
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, davy wrote:
> Can I do a 4.1 -> 5.4 in one shot?
>
Nope. One version at a time, .. though the better solution would be to do
a fresh install and copy data.
Lee
olland :
> On 02/06/14 05:49, davy wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've recently was asked to take over the maintenance of an old
> > OpenBSD machine, which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
> >
> > Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000
On 02/06/14 05:49, davy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’ve recently was asked to take over the maintenance of an old
> OpenBSD machine, which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
>
> Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1.
> It has been a while since
x27;t it? :)
> >
> >Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1. It has
> >been a while since I worked with OpenBSD (shame on me), and I?m really not
> >sure what the best way would be to upgrade this machine, knowning I don?t
> >have a seri
Hi,
davy wrote:
Hi,
I’ve recently was asked to take over the maintenance of an old OpenBSD machine,
which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
OpenBSD is stable, isn't it? :)
Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1. It has
been a while since I worked
ine, which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1.
It has been a while since I worked with OpenBSD (shame on me), and
I’m really not sure what the best way would be to upgrade this
machine, knowning I don’t have a serial or local
On 06/02/14 12:49, davy wrote:
Hi,
I’ve recently was asked to take over the maintenance of an old OpenBSD machine,
which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1. It has
been a while since I worked with OpenBSD (shame on
Hi,
I’ve recently was asked to take over the maintenance of an old OpenBSD machine,
which has not been updated in the last 7 years.
Currently the machine has been running for close to 1000 days on 4.1. It has
been a while since I worked with OpenBSD (shame on me), and I’m really not sure
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Yamidt Henao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> where I find the gcc version for OpenBSD 4.1.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Y.H
>
>
http://www.openbsd.org/41.html
--
Jason
On 8/17/09, Yamidt Henao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> where I find the gcc version for OpenBSD 4.1.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Y.H
By ordering OpenBSD 4.1 CD set from http://www.openbsd.org/orders.html
tbox:fred ~> gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (propolice)
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Softwa
Hi,
where I find the gcc version for OpenBSD 4.1.
Best Regards,
Y.H
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> ah, actually I think this one (which only affected numbers in
> a macro; strings worked ok) was already fixed. on -current:
>
> $ pfctl -nvf -
> ssh = "22"
> ssh = "22"
> smtp= "25"
> smtp = "25"
> penguin = "216.39.
On 2008-08-03, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> The pfctl-based config parsers were re-unified between 4.2 and
>> 4.3, most things just work but there are some uncommon cases
>> which used to work that don't now.
>
> Ok thanks! Do you happen to know if there are plans to
2008/8/4 Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> They're optional, why shouldn't the FAQ use them?
> This is pretty clear in the BNF section in pf.conf(5).
And http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/macros.html says so. I rest my case. :-)
Best
Martin
On 2008-08-04, Martin Schrvder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When the pf FAQ has no more optional commas? :-)
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/macros.html has some.
They're optional, why shouldn't the FAQ use them?
This is pretty clear in the BNF section in pf.conf(5).
* Martin Schrvder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-04 16:23]:
> 2008/8/4 Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > * Vasile Cristescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-03 01:41]:
> >> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh $smtp "}" <-- I think it should be like :
> >> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh, $smtp "}"
> >
> > when will
2008/8/4 Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Vasile Cristescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-03 01:41]:
>> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh $smtp "}" <-- I think it should be like :
>> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh, $smtp "}"
>
> when will people learn that the commas are optional
When the pf FAQ has no more
* Vasile Cristescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-03 01:41]:
> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh $smtp "}" <-- I think it should be like :
> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh, $smtp "}"
when will people learn that the commas are optional
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> The pfctl-based config parsers were re-unified between 4.2 and
> 4.3, most things just work but there are some uncommon cases
> which used to work that don't now.
Ok thanks! Do you happen to know if there are plans to fix the
uncommon cases at some point? It seems like th
On Sunday 03 August 2008, nate wrote:
> Hello there ..
>
> I am in the process of building a new OpenBSD 4.3 system in
> parallel to my existing 4.1 system and ran into a little
> glitch with regards to migrating my pf rule set to the new
> system.
>
> It seems that in 4.
On 2008-08-02, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am in the process of building a new OpenBSD 4.3 system in
> parallel to my existing 4.1 system and ran into a little
> glitch with regards to migrating my pf rule set to the new
> system.
The pfctl-based config parsers were re-u
On Sunday 03 August 2008, you wrote:
> Vasile Cristescu wrote:
> > Hello,
> > penguin_ports = "{" $ssh $smtp "}" <-- I think it should be like :
> > penguin_ports = "{" $ssh, $smtp "}"
>
> Thanks for the quick reply! I just tried your suggestion but I get
> the same syntax error. The faq doesn't m
Vasile Cristescu wrote:
> Hello,
> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh $smtp "}" <-- I think it should be like :
> penguin_ports = "{" $ssh, $smtp "}"
Thanks for the quick reply! I just tried your suggestion but I get
the same syntax error. The faq doesn't mention commas either(for
recursive macros):
htt
Hello there ..
I am in the process of building a new OpenBSD 4.3 system in
parallel to my existing 4.1 system and ran into a little
glitch with regards to migrating my pf rule set to the new
system.
It seems that in 4.3, macros that expand to ports with
variables doesn't work anymore. I
firmware did not change
anything. As said 4.1 is perfectly able to access the disk, only 4.2 and
4.3 fail.
Any ideas?
harald
Steve Shockley schrieb:
Harald Oest wrote:
i have a strange problem upgrading OpenBSD 4.1 to 4.2 on two IDENTICAL
HP Proliant DL 140 G3 servers. While machine 1 runs the
Harald Oest wrote:
i have a strange problem upgrading OpenBSD 4.1 to 4.2 on two IDENTICAL
HP Proliant DL 140 G3 servers. While machine 1 runs the upgrade
procedure without any problem, machine 2 encounters an error when
checking the root filesystem.
Try running the HP offline diags, even
hi to all,
i have a strange problem upgrading OpenBSD 4.1 to 4.2 on two IDENTICAL
HP Proliant DL 140 G3 servers. While machine 1 runs the upgrade
procedure without any problem, machine 2 encounters an error when
checking the root filesystem. There's apparently a problem accessing the
Sy
Before changing from 4.1 to 4.3, I was able to setup wireless card (wi0) at:
inet 192.168.1.106 netmask 255.255.255.128 broadcast 192.168.1.127
and wired card (fxp1) to:
inet 192.168.1.254 netmask 255.255.255.128 broadcast 192.168.1.255
I am doing this because I cannot change the AP's ad
My real upgrade however needs to be remote, so I cannot boot the ramdisk
> kernel
> and perform these steps. For completeness, I did the following to make a
> remote
> upgrade work.
>
> 1. login to 4.1 system
> 2. copy 4.2 kernels and disklabel from 4.2 to system.
> 3. run
in advance for any help i receive. I am
> > having problems upgrading from OpenBSD 4.1 to 4.2.
> >
> > After putting the GENERIC 4.2 kernel in place, i get the following errors
> > for all partitions during boot,
> > followed by a panic:
> >
> > wd0a: id no
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:47:48AM -0700, Darrian Hale wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First of all I want to thank anyone in advance for any help i receive. I am
> having problems upgrading from OpenBSD 4.1 to 4.2.
>
> After putting the GENERIC 4.2 kernel in place, i get the followin
Hello,
First of all I want to thank anyone in advance for any help i receive. I am
having problems upgrading from OpenBSD 4.1 to 4.2.
After putting the GENERIC 4.2 kernel in place, i get the following errors
for all partitions during boot,
followed by a panic:
wd0a: id not found reading fsbn
Oops I sent this to Nick and not the list...
On 28/04/2008, at 1:39 AM, Nick Holland wrote:
Damon McMahon wrote:
Greetings,
Can anyone enlighten me as to why DHCP clients are no longer
retrieving their domain name from my OpenBSD DHCP/DNS server which I
recently upgraded from 4.1 to 4.3 via
On 2008-05-02, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> phpxs
>
> As all are script files, it's fairly simple, but, again, they should check
> for -d and -f instead of forcing users to make manual changes. If anyone
> has suggestions for implementation, I will try to work through some
At 02:42 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, Mark Rolen wrote:
L. V. Lammert wrote:
PHP is working [cli or web], .. problem is none of the modules are. Both
mysql & mcrypt, for example, are enabled in php.ini, but neither shows in
phpinfo.
Have you verified that the *.so files php is looking for (memcache.
h I
> recently upgraded from 4.1 to 4.3 via 4.2? DHCP and DNS seems to
> functioning normally otherwise...
>
> Any advice appreciated (as always),
> Damon
>
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Damon McMahon wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Can anyone enlighten me as to why DHCP clients are no longer
> retrieving their domain name from my OpenBSD DHCP/DNS server which I
> recently upgraded from 4.1 to 4.3 via 4.2? DHCP and DNS seems to
> functioning normally otherwise.
Greetings,
Can anyone enlighten me as to why DHCP clients are no longer
retrieving their domain name from my OpenBSD DHCP/DNS server which I
recently upgraded from 4.1 to 4.3 via 4.2? DHCP and DNS seems to
functioning normally otherwise...
Any advice appreciated (as always),
Damon
On April 25, 2008 12:58:25 pm L. V. Lammert wrote:
> One of my development machine has been upgraded many times over the years,
> of couse, .. now trying to setup a php test site for a new project (have
> not had php installed before). For some reason I cannot get any of the PHP
> *modules* to init
At 11:53 AM 4/25/2008 -0700, Daniel Anderson wrote:
Have you tried invoking php from cli and see if you get anything there, guess
you'd have to specify your ini file from www/conf manually. I had bad luck
with the php5 package on 3.9/amd64 so I just built my own and it worked
without an issue.
On 2008-04-25, L. V. Lammert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my development machine has been upgraded many times over the years,
> of couse, .. now trying to setup a php test site for a new project (have
> not had php installed before). For some reason I cannot get any of the PHP
> *modules*
Have you tried invoking php from cli and see if you get anything there, guess
you'd have to specify your ini file from www/conf manually. I had bad luck
with the php5 package on 3.9/amd64 so I just built my own and it worked
without an issue.
---
At 11:28 AM 4/25/2008 -0700, Daniel Anderson wrote:
Stupid question here, did you uncomment them in php.ini?
Not really a stupid question, but I did - both manually & with phpxs.
Actually had an error when I enabled curl (it showed as duplicated), so I
know php5 is reading the ini file.
Stupid question here, did you uncomment them in php.ini?
---
On Friday 25 April 2008 10:58:25 am you wrote:
> One of my development machine has been upgraded many times over the years,
> of couse, .. now trying to setup a php test site for a new project (have
>
One of my development machine has been upgraded many times over the years,
of couse, .. now trying to setup a php test site for a new project (have
not had php installed before). For some reason I cannot get any of the PHP
*modules* to initialize (they install, but will not appear in phpinfo).
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:03:18AM +0930, Damon McMahon wrote:
>
> I avoided the 4.1->4.2 upgrade due to the libexpat issue - using
> several packages which use libexpat and not wanting to install xbase
> on my system. I have read through upgrade43.html and just want to make
&g
Damon McMahon wrote:
> I have read through upgrade43.html and just want to make sure that I can
> upgrade 4.1->4.2, skip the "Upgrading packages" step and then > upgrade
> 4.2->4.3 without having to install xbase?
http://openbsd.org/faq/upgrade43.html wrote
Greetings,
I avoided the 4.1->4.2 upgrade due to the libexpat issue - using
several packages which use libexpat and not wanting to install xbase
on my system. I have read through upgrade43.html and just want to
make sure that I can upgrade 4.1->4.2, skip the "Upgrading packages&
On 2008-03-17, Artur Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most likely (although you haven't provided any information, so we
> can't be sure), your machine is using the 8254 time counter.
The 8s on the core2duo machine seems a bit slow since slower machines
using 8254 take around 3.5s for the sam
Most likely (although you haven't provided any information, so we
can't be sure), your machine is using the 8254 time counter.
Earlier it would have been using TSC for timekeeping, but TSC is so
unreliable on so many machines and it's more or less impossible to
know when it can be trusted, so TSC
We came to this conclusion several posts ago :)
It felt irrelevant to me what timecounter h/w / driver I was using -
as stated repeated times, after reporting about this I was -just
curious- on what changed from 4.1 to 4.2, and that has been perfectly
elaborated already by Otto Moerbeek and
On 2008-03-15, Jonathan Thornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apart from these nits... my results on a Thinkpad T41p (i386 Pentium M)
> running 4.2-stable are (test program compiled with gcc 4.2.0, -g -O2):
> ... with 'apm -H' in effect (clock speed 1.7GHz): 2.92 seconds
> ... with 'apm -L' in eff
It's a (very) minor point, orthogonal to gettimeofday() performance,
but the *first* thing that struck me about the test code
(http://pastebin.com/m311250a6) was "why do (two!) double-precision
floating-point divides by 100.0 instead of multplying by 1.0e-6?".
Indeed, doing two integer-to-doubl
* stolendata.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-14 22:34]:
> my 4.1 and 4.2 machines are -stable, and all are running i386, clearly.
>
> My surprise and question was all in the fact that this changed from
> 4.1 to 4.2, and WHY it changed from 4.1 to 4.2. Otto Moerbeek has
> a
my 4.1 and 4.2 machines are -stable, and all are running i386, clearly.
My surprise and question was all in the fact that this changed from
4.1 to 4.2, and WHY it changed from 4.1 to 4.2. Otto Moerbeek has
already explained that there was a change in the timecounter code, and
your addition puts
Whichever timer hardware your system is using (you can see with
'sysctl kern.timecounter') seems a bit on the slow side, my 1200MHz
X40 runs your test program in 2.9s.
$ sysctl kern.timecounter
kern.timecounter.tick=1
kern.timecounter.timestepwarnings=0
kern.timecounter.hardware=ICHPM
kern.timecou
The question is, how long would that take on the same hardware but on
4.1? :-) My guess is approx. 16 times less time.
I have now tested this on a third machine, a 1.9ghz Sempron LE-1100,
on both 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 (all i386 dist), and the result is the same;
approx. 16 times slower gettimeofday
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:08:42PM +0100, stolendata.net wrote:
> Upon trying to locate an unexplained, massive performance reduction
> when switching host for a number of applications from obsd 4.1 to 4.2,
> I found that it seems gettimeofday() has taken a nosedive in
> performance a
$ ./time
100 calls to gettimeofday() ... 4.503s
$ uname -srp
OpenBSD 4.2 AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2600+ ("AuthenticAMD" 686-class, 512KB L2 cache)
$
Seems fine here, looks like the error is on your end.. ;)
Have you tested on 4.3/snapshots.. perhaps enabling/disabling acpi.. etc?
hen switching host for a number of applications from obsd 4.1 to 4.2,
> | I found that it seems gettimeofday() has taken a nosedive in
> | performance as of openbsd 4.2.
> |
> | A very blunt test confirmed it; however, I'm not sure wherein the
> | process of gettimeofday(
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:08:42PM +0100, stolendata.net wrote:
| Upon trying to locate an unexplained, massive performance reduction
| when switching host for a number of applications from obsd 4.1 to 4.2,
| I found that it seems gettimeofday() has taken a nosedive in
| performance as of openbsd
Upon trying to locate an unexplained, massive performance reduction
when switching host for a number of applications from obsd 4.1 to 4.2,
I found that it seems gettimeofday() has taken a nosedive in
performance as of openbsd 4.2.
A very blunt test confirmed it; however, I'm not sure wherei
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:04AM +0800, Wong Peter wrote:
> Hello all respect network administrator, i have set up a openbsd gateway but
> the wireless connection(gateway) is not detected by client but before this
> is ok. Can see it widnows but now cannot. I don't know what wrong with it.
>
> I
Hello all respect network administrator, i have set up a openbsd gateway but
the wireless connection(gateway) is not detected by client but before this
is ok. Can see it widnows but now cannot. I don't know what wrong with it.
I sure my configuration is ok because i didn't edit it.
Another proble
On 2/21/08, Wong Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Before this, it is not normal to me because it is very fast. Now become
> like this and also the wireless problem.
>
> My wireless card is Linksys Wmp54g.
>
> No i do not do any thing to rc.rconf .rc.local.
>
> /etc/hostname.rl1 :
> inet 172.16.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:46AM +0800, Wong Peter wrote:
> I know why is need to wait for long time because i have a long list of
> hacker address(table rules) hacked me before. Therefore, opnebsd need to
> check it before connect to internet.
>
> I need to wait around 5 minutes.
If this is no
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:29:25AM +0800, Wong Peter wrote:
> Hello all respect network administrator, i have set up a openbsd gateway but
> the wireless connection(gateway) is not detected by client but before this
> is ok. Can see it widnows but now cannot. I don't know what wrong with it.
>
> I
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 04:34:18AM -0800, Manuel Ravasio wrote:
Hey there,
> Ok, I did understand THAT.
> What I'm still missing is the relationship (if any) between a couple of
> hashes and a possible breach in OBSD...
Well, if the guy genuinely had an exploit and wanted to keep the
mechanism
1 - 100 of 713 matches
Mail list logo
