Ëèêâèäèðîâàíèå ïðåäïðèÿòèé âñåõ ôîðì ñîáñòâåííîñòè âî âñåõ ðåãèîíàõ Óêðàèíû
· Óñëóãè ïî ïðåêðàùåíèþ äåÿòåëüíîñòè ïðåäïðèÿòèé
· Óñëóãè ïî óñêîðåííîé ëèêâèäàöèè
· Ïðåêðàùåíèå äåÿòåëüíîñòè ïðåäïðèÿòèé ïóòåì âûêóïà (îò 6000 ãðí)
Óñëóãè ïî ðåãèñòðàöèè íîâîãî ïðåäïðèÿòèÿ ñ îôîðìëåíèåì ñâèäåòåëüñòâà
Hi,
I currently follow STABLE branch for openbsd (and so, for ports too), which is
OPENBSD_5_1.
But, I saw that the last security updates for ports go to OPENBSD_5_2 and not
to OPENBSD_5_1.
According to the FAQ (http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PortsSecurity),
only the current and last
Hi Misc@,
Did anyone experience a high latency pings on em(4) interface post 5.0? We
have several machines on i386 -current with em(4) experiencing high
latency/RTT pings, and its really bothering our clients. Then we moved the
traffic/vlan to sk(4) interface and pings goes to the expected
I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags=
doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start
named.
The way it is right now seems more like monkey patching from the days
before OpenBSD became popular. I acknowledge the whole it's been like
this for ages,
While I can set wol for this interface, the setting does not
survive shutdown. I have found no bios settings that seem to pertain.
This system is not dual-boot. Is this a quirk of the 8168? Do I need to
look for jumpers? ;-)
--
Edward Ahlsen-Girard
Ft Walton Beach, FL
OpenBSD 5.2-current
On 08/29/12 06:56, Ed Ahlsen-Girard wrote:
While I can set wol for this interface, the setting does not
survive shutdown. I have found no bios settings that seem to pertain.
This system is not dual-boot. Is this a quirk of the 8168? Do I need to
look for jumpers?
As far as I can tell from my
Hi Misc@,
I had to add that the corresponding em(4) are (on all machines);
em4 at pci4 dev 5 function 0 Intel PRO/1000MT (82541GI) rev 0x05: apic 5
int 17, address 00:15:17:49:04:0e
em2 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 Intel PRO/1000MT (82573E) rev 0x03: msi,
address 00:15:17:25:0a:9d
em1 at
Mikkel Bang wrote:
I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags=
doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start
named.
The way it is right now seems more like monkey patching from the days
before OpenBSD became popular. I acknowledge the whole it's been
Le 2012-08-29 09:57, Mikkel Bang a écrit :
If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched
this baby up a long time ago.
Sadly, a good argument against moving to Git.
Simon
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Mikkel Bang facebookman...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags=
doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start
named.
The way it is right now seems more like monkey patching from the days
On 2012 Aug 29 (Wed) at 15:57:09 +0200 (+0200), Mikkel Bang wrote:
:If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched
:this baby up a long time ago.
1) Here's a nickle, go learn to use cvs.
2) We'd reject the patch anyways.
--
Stop searching. Happiness is right next to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:22:38AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-08-29 09:57, Mikkel Bang a ?crit :
If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched
this baby up a long time ago.
Sadly, a good argument against moving to Git.
Simon
Whatcha 'git agit gitting
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 05:08:31PM +0200, Erling Westenvik wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:03:42AM -0600, Aaron wrote:
It is possible if you use different partitions on the same drive, however,
you would have to run -P twice ( once for each volume ).
Sorry for not mentioning that
How much can I increase net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen ?
I'm now at 2048 and still seeing increase in net.inet.ip.ifq.drops. This
morning, it was at 21280 and now at 21328.
I've change the système for a temporary more powerfull one (core 2 quad
+ 2 dual 82571EB) while I'm commanding and building new
On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:57, Mikkel Bang facebookman...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags=
doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start
named.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Seriously, tho: is uninformed
beginners
Cómo Manejar con Éxito Actos Públicos en Panamá
Panama 05 de Septiembre, 2012
SHERATON PANAMA HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER
El curso más completo para conocer y actualizarse en los procesos y
reglamentos de ADQUISICIONES DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS en las Instituciones del
Estado!
Este interesante curso
copy; 2012 Conference Corporativo S.C. Asista a los 44 Mejores Cursos en
Meacute;xico de la Serie: ADQUISICIONES Y OBRAS PUacute;BLICAS Incluye Temas
Criacute;ticos Sobre:
Cierre de Gestioacute;n, Observaciones y Responsabilidades
Cursos, Contenidos y Metodologiacute;as Desarrollados en Alianza
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 02:31:53AM +1000, Joel Sing wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 05:08:31PM +0200, Erling Westenvik wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:03:42AM -0600, Aaron wrote:
It is possible if you use different partitions on the same drive, however,
you would have to run -P twice
Le Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:59:46 +0200,
Sebastien Marie semarie-open...@latrappe.fr a écrit :
Hello,
I currently follow STABLE branch for openbsd (and so, for ports too),
which is OPENBSD_5_1.
But, I saw that the last security updates for ports go to OPENBSD_5_2
and not to OPENBSD_5_1.
Any
Over on source-changes, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I don't disagree with using AES-128 as default on a possibly busy mail
server. I was just wondering why the word obsolete was used and if it
was simply because twofish and AES are faster.
Blowfish is older, not standardized,
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Over on source-changes, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I don't disagree with using AES-128 as default on a possibly busy mail
server. I was just wondering why the word obsolete was used and if it
was simply because twofish and AES are faster.
I have both latency and paquet drop problem on 5.1 on card using em(4).
Tryed both 82571EB and 82546GB. It was worst with 82546GB.
Mailing list subject :
WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase kern.maxclusters and paquet lost
net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen was WARNING: mclpools limit reached;
Oups, sorry. It's OpenBSD 5.0, not 5.1.
Le 2012-08-29 17:05, Michel Blais a écrit :
I have both latency and paquet drop problem on 5.1 on card using
em(4). Tryed both 82571EB and 82546GB. It was worst with 82546GB.
Mailing list subject :
WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
To prevent lockup situations with full send queues when further
interrupts fail to appear, the em(4)
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=emmanpath=OpenBSD%20Currentsektion=4format=html
driver's start routine is triggered after the link status has been updated.
No longer attempt to
Hi!
I'm just curious if this is something that could get fixed (or maybe
danced around):
@linux $ qemu-kvm -enable-kvm -cpu host -smp 2 -m 512 \
-hda openbsd-current.img \
-net nic,model=e1000,macaddr=52:54:00:12:34:56 \
-net tap,ifname=tap0,script=no,downscript=no -curses
iPXE
SFR
Chèr(e) Client,
SFR Neufbox
Nous avons constater que le règlement de la facture mentionnée ci-dessus
a été rejété par votre banque pour le motif suivant : Réfus : Transaction
Non Permise Au Porteur.
Nous vous invitons à verifier dès aujourd'hui auprès de votre banque la
bonne prise en
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 16:34, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
And I'm fairly certain blowfish did get a lot of attention. And since
bcrypt is reasonably popular, I'd imagine blowfish *still* gets
attention from the cryptographic community.
The security of bcrypt is almost completely unrelated to the
27 matches
Mail list logo
