How to get FreeBSD 5.4 installed on Compaq Presario R3000 serie ?

2005-11-03 Thread Soib
Hi all, I'm trying getting FreeBSD 5.4 installed from CD on my laptop Compaq Presario R3117EA (Intel Celeron and ATI 9000 IGP) without any success. CD installation starts well and the menu is well displayed. But whatever I choose, the kernel message is displayed and ... my PC is shut off :(

COMPAT* switches in /etc/make.conf

2005-11-03 Thread Patrick M. Hausen
Hi, all! I have relied on the COMPAT* switches in /etc/make.conf for years to allow binary software like some of the stuff we distribute to work out of the box on 5.X servers. Now, while setting up our first RELENG_6 system I found that they are actually no ops? OK, I searched a little bit.

Re: COMPAT* switches in /etc/make.conf

2005-11-03 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
Hi Patrick, On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:38:24AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: I have relied on the COMPAT* switches in /etc/make.conf for years to allow binary software like some of the stuff we distribute to work out of the box on 5.X servers. Now, while setting up our first RELENG_6

volunteer computer-geek to help us for FREE? please contact !

2005-11-03 Thread jan tore
Hello !!! we send out donation links now a days! pluss send old computers for Africa. we register importent books/articles/science ALL from prosessors of all kinds pluss much much more to translate print free etc. we do more importent stuff but red cross still

Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread dick hoogendijk
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:27:15 +0100 Philippe PEGON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken Menzel wrote: options INVARIANT_SUPPORT nooptions WITNESS nooptions WITNESS_SKIP_SPIN If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following? #cpuI486_CPU #cpuI586_CPU

Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread Robert Watson
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote: Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here? options - nooptions / i486_cpu - no??? It's OK to leave GENERIC alone, but HOW are things switched off? It appears to be an ommission in the file format. I've e-mailed Ruslan, who implemented

6.0 RC1 and usb - rs-232 adapters

2005-11-03 Thread José M. Fandiño
Hello, Recently I have upgraded a FBSD laptop from 5-STABLE to 6.0RC1, all seems works except the usb-rs232 adapter which is detected by the umct and ucom modules as: ucom0: USB-RS232 Interface Converter USB Ver1.2 Device, rev 1.10/1.03, addr 3 however no /dev entry is created for this

Re: 6.0 RC1 and usb - rs-232 adapters

2005-11-03 Thread Kazuaki Oda
José M. Fandiño wrote: Hello, Recently I have upgraded a FBSD laptop from 5-STABLE to 6.0RC1, all seems works except the usb-rs232 adapter which is detected by the umct and ucom modules as: ucom0: USB-RS232 Interface Converter USB Ver1.2 Device, rev 1.10/1.03, addr 3 however no /dev entry

Re: 6.0 RC1 and usb - rs-232 adapters

2005-11-03 Thread Mike Tancsa
At 07:39 AM 03/11/2005, José M. Fandiño wrote: Hello, Recently I have upgraded a FBSD laptop from 5-STABLE to 6.0RC1, all seems works except the usb-rs232 adapter which is detected by the umct and ucom modules as: ucom0: USB-RS232 Interface Converter USB Ver1.2 Device, rev 1.10/1.03, addr 3

May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ]

2005-11-03 Thread Taras Savchuk
My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that alternate super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, that in UFS2 (my file system) alternate super block is usually located in block 160 (For UFS1 - in 32). So the question is: why fsck trying to find alternate

Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread Philippe PEGON
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:27:15 +0100 Philippe PEGON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken Menzel wrote: options INVARIANT_SUPPORT nooptions WITNESS nooptions WITNESS_SKIP_SPIN If I include GENERIC can I comment out the following? #cpuI486_CPU #cpu

Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +, Robert Watson wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote: Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here? options - nooptions / i486_cpu - no??? It's OK to leave GENERIC alone, but HOW are things switched off? It appears to be an

Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread John Nielsen
On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:03 am, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +, Robert Watson wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote: Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here? options - nooptions / i486_cpu - no??? It's OK to leave GENERIC

Re: Problems with HP dx5150/ATI Xpress 200 chipset

2005-11-03 Thread Stuart Henderson
--On 02 November 2005 15:19 -0800, Jeffrey Williams wrote: I have recently purchased a number HP DX5150 SFF desktops with idea of using them as basic infrastructure servers (e.g. DNS, DHCP, and firewall). I prefer to use -stable versions of FreeBSD and OpenBSD. A few general thoughts (no

NFS problems

2005-11-03 Thread Elliot Finley
I upgraded 9 of my systems to RELENG_5 on Oct 29 and 30. Now none of them can do a dump to an NFS mounted directory. the NFS connection is made, because the dump file is created on the NFS directory, but it stays at 0 bytes. The system that is doing the dump hangs after: oregon root:#dump

Re: NFS problems

2005-11-03 Thread Elliot Finley
- Original Message - From: Elliot Finley [EMAIL PROTECTED] I upgraded 9 of my systems to RELENG_5 on Oct 29 and 30. Now none of them can do a dump to an NFS mounted directory. Oops I also changed some ipf rules and after opening everything up, the dump works again. Sorry for the

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Francisco
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote: Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server performance -- it accelerates reads (if you have mirror load-balancing), but all writes are required to be held until complete on both disks. The only worse case would be RAID-5, where you

Re: SATA vs SCSI ...

2005-11-03 Thread Francisco Reyes
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Don Lewis wrote: BTW, even with an UPS monitored by sysutils/nut, I've had a non-trival number of ungraceful shutdowns caused by power problems (power cord between UPS and computer falls out, sudden battery death, etc.). For this reason, all of my machines (other than my

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Chuck Swiger
Francisco wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote: Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server performance -- it accelerates reads (if you have mirror load-balancing), but all writes are required to be held until complete on both disks. The only worse case would be

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Brad Knowles
At 1:34 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote: Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server performance -- it accelerates reads (if you have mirror load-balancing), but all writes are required to be held until complete on both

Re: May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ]

2005-11-03 Thread Xin LI
On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that alternate super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, that in UFS2 (my file system) alternate super block is usually located in block 160 (For UFS1 - in 32). So

Re: SATA vs SCSI ...

2005-11-03 Thread sthaug
Going through an old thread and saw your comment... What is the sysctl parameter to use to turn off WCE? camcontrol modepage Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Francisco Reyes
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote: If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good choice. How about for database? In particular postgresql. How bad would RAID 5 be for it? I still have some,

DMA errors

2005-11-03 Thread Stephen Montgomery-Smith
I found these messages on my computer, which is running a very recent RELENG_5. Is this bad? Does it indicate that the disk is failing? Nov 3 07:35:48 cauchy kernel: ad4: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51READY,DSC,ERROR error=40UNCORRECTABLE LBA=145908831 Nov 3 07:35:51 cauchy kernel: ad4:

Re: May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ]

2005-11-03 Thread Taras Savchuk
On 11/3/05, Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that alternate super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, that in UFS2 (my file system) alternate super block is

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Nov 03), Francisco Reyes said: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote: How about for database? In particular postgresql. How bad would RAID 5 be for it? I still have some, limited, hopes I can convince the owner of the company to go with RAID 10 with 10K rpm drives..

Re: DMA errors

2005-11-03 Thread jcr
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: I found these messages on my computer, which is running a very recent RELENG_5. Is this bad? Does it indicate that the disk is failing? Nov 3 07:35:48 cauchy kernel: ad4: FAILURE - READ_DMA status=51READY,DSC,ERROR error=40UNCORRECTABLE LBA=145908831 Nov 3

Re: Fw: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 09:27:02AM -0500, John Nielsen wrote: On Thursday 03 November 2005 09:03 am, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:27:21PM +, Robert Watson wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, dick hoogendijk wrote: Sure, but I think it's the *syntax* that matters here?

Nogobble, nogobble

2005-11-03 Thread Brett Glass
The recent discussion regarding kernel configuration directives and a file containing defaults reminds me of a poster I saw in college long ago. The poster warned students who were headed home for the Thanksgiving holiday to lock their rooms to avoid theft, saying, Don't be a turkey. The

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:35 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco Reyes wrote: If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good choice. How about for database? In particular postgresql. How bad would RAID 5 be for it? RAID-5

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:06 PM -0600 2005-11-03, Dan Nelson wrote: The biggest reason for going RAID-5 is that you only get 50% useable capacity out of RAID 10, and at least 75% out of a RAID 5 (with a 3+1 layout. With an 8+1 layout you get 88%). If you don't need fast writes, or your controller has

Re: Nogobble, nogobble

2005-11-03 Thread Brett Glass
At 07:34 PM 11/3/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn't work in reality, as discussed previously. It has always worked perfectly in my reality. Again, the problem is that when one slims down a kernel (which is usually the reason one uses something other than

Re: GENERIC and DEFAULTS

2005-11-03 Thread Rob
Kris Kennaway wrote: You've clearly never spent much time on the FreeBSD support forums, where every few days someone posts for help 1) with an error caused by removing one of those Do not remove this! lines, and 2) for help on getting X working when they forgot to add /dev/io and

Re: Nogobble, nogobble

2005-11-03 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 09:42:45PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: At 07:34 PM 11/3/2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: Thanks for your $0.02, but that doesn't work in reality, as discussed previously. It has always worked perfectly in my reality. That's just wonderful, Brett! Kris pgpzNQzosXQSm.pgp

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread michael meltzer
--- Francisco Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, michael meltzer wrote: Controller: http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata2-9000.asp 16 port muili-lane, with BU and 265meg, cheaper than most SCSI controller From what I gather, the ARECA controllers have

Re: compile error - bus error

2005-11-03 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Thu, 2005-Nov-03 07:39:02 +, Jayton Garnett wrote: Just to confirm my suspicions, while compiling apache 2.0.55 on a fresh install of FreeBSD 5.4 with fresh cvsup'd ports tree I got an error, the error stated : Bus error. This is a hardware fault is it not? or is it some other error? I'd

Re: Disk 100% busy

2005-11-03 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Nov 04), Brad Knowles said: At 2:35 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco Reyes wrote: If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good choice. How about for database? In particular

Re: compile error - bus error

2005-11-03 Thread Jayton Garnett
Peter Jeremy wrote: On Thu, 2005-Nov-03 07:39:02 +, Jayton Garnett wrote: Just to confirm my suspicions, while compiling apache 2.0.55 on a fresh install of FreeBSD 5.4 with fresh cvsup'd ports tree I got an error, the error stated : Bus error. This is a hardware fault is it not? or

Re: compile error - bus error

2005-11-03 Thread Peter Jeremy
On Fri, 2005-Nov-04 07:12:54 +, Jayton Garnett wrote: Yes it is reproducable, it just happened while compiling mysql41-server. While trying to compile apache20 a short while ago the computer rebooted itself, before that it had the same error so I tried compiling again and thats when it