Re: Thinkpad choice? -Is Nvidia tolerable for generic X?
Rod Whitworth nospam.22@xoxy.net wrote: I have a Thinkpad T430s with sandybridge (or ivybridge, I can never remember), and life isn't too bad. I can suspend/resume, watch (smaller) movies and dvds, and generally use it. Thanks for replying Peter. Can you switch from X to a virtual console and back again? With -current, I can on my Ivy Bridge laptop (Thinkpad X230). However, the text consoles are gone (all blank) after a suspend-resume. xbacklight(1) can control the screen brightness, but, bizarrely, only if it's been adjusted at least once with the hotkeys during the BIOS phase of the boot. -- Christian naddy Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
ypserv
Does OpenBSD ypserv serve multiple nis domain simultaneously ? Thanks in advance.
MS Nano Transceiver
Hello, Is here anyone who got Microsoft Wireless Mobile mouse to work on OpenBSD? Before OpenBSD 5.2 wouldn't even recognise device and disable USB port whenever transceiver was plugged in. Now it seems to recognise device just fine: uhidev0 at uhub1 port 1 configuration 1 interface 0 Microsoft Microsoft\M-. Nano Transceiver v2.0 rev 2.00/6.34 addr 2 uhidev0: iclass 3/1 ukbd0 at uhidev0: 8 variable keys, 6 key codes wskbd1 at ukbd0 mux 1 wskbd1: connecting to wsdisplay0 uhidev1 at uhub1 port 1 configuration 1 interface 1 Microsoft Microsoft\M-. Nano Transceiver v2.0 rev 2.00/6.34 addr 2 uhidev1: iclass 3/1, 28 report ids uhid0 at uhidev1 reportid 18: input=0, output=0, feature=1 uhid1 at uhidev1 reportid 22: input=4, output=0, feature=0 uhid2 at uhidev1 reportid 23: input=0, output=0, feature=1 ums0 at uhidev1 reportid 26: 5 buttons, Z dir wsmouse1 at ums0 mux 0 uhid3 at uhidev1 reportid 28: input=3, output=0, feature=0 uhidev2 at uhub1 port 1 configuration 1 interface 2 Microsoft Microsoft\M-. Nano Transceiver v2.0 rev 2.00/6.34 addr 2 uhidev2: iclass 3/0, 8 report ids uhid4 at uhidev2 reportid 3: input=1, output=0, feature=0 uhid5 at uhidev2 reportid 4: input=1, output=0, feature=0 uhid6 at uhidev2 reportid 7: input=7, output=0, feature=0 uhid7 at uhidev2 reportid 8: input=1, output=0, feature=0 wsconsctl also sees the mouse (not sure that mouse1.scale is correct though): # wsconsctl keyboard.type=pc-xt keyboard.bell.pitch=400 keyboard.bell.period=100 keyboard.bell.volume=50 keyboard.bell.pitch.default=400 keyboard.bell.period.default=100 keyboard.bell.volume.default=50 wsconsctl: Use explicit arg to view keyboard.map. keyboard.repeat.del1=400 keyboard.repeat.deln=100 keyboard.repeat.del1.default=400 keyboard.repeat.deln.default=100 keyboard.ledstate=0 keyboard.encoding=us keyboard1.type=usb keyboard1.bell.pitch=400 keyboard1.bell.period=100 keyboard1.bell.volume=50 keyboard1.bell.pitch.default=400 keyboard1.bell.period.default=100 keyboard1.bell.volume.default=50 wsconsctl: Use explicit arg to view keyboard1.map. keyboard1.repeat.del1=400 keyboard1.repeat.deln=100 keyboard1.repeat.del1.default=400 keyboard1.repeat.deln.default=100 keyboard1.ledstate=0 keyboard1.encoding=us mouse.type=synaptics mouse.rawmode=0 mouse.scale=1472,5472,1408,4448,0,63,109 mouse1.type=usb mouse1.rawmode=1 mouse1.scale=0,0,0,0,0,0,0 display.type=vga-pci display.emulations=vt100 display.screentypes=80x25,80x25bf,80x40,80x40bf,80x50,80x50bf display.focus=4 display.screen_on=250 display.screen_off=60 display.vblank=off display.kbdact=off display.msact=off display.outact=off But nothing happens when mouse is attached and turned on, xinput is complaining about being unable to find device: # xinput --test /dev/wsmouse1 unable to find device '/dev/wsmouse1' This specific mouse is Microsoft Wireless Mobile Mouse 4000, nothing except mouse is attached to wireless transceiver. wsmouse0 is notebook's touchpad. Thanks! -- Karlis
Re: question about built-in support for full disk encryption
On 2012-11-11, Jiri B ji...@devio.us wrote: On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:20:53AM +, hepta tor wrote: Thanks for the pointer. Do you know if there are any guidelines on how to configure FDE with what's implemented in -current? At http://geekyschmidt.com/2011/01/19/configuring-openbsd-softraid-fo-encryption there is a kind of mini tutorial on how to configure softraid for encryption - does anyone know if this is compatible with what's implemented in -current? -h 1. During installation jump to shell 2. fdisk sd0 3. disklabel sd0, so sd0a is RAID, no sd0b as swap! 4. cd /dev ; sh ./MAKEDEV sd1 ; cd / 5. bioctl -c C -l /dev/sd0a softraid0 6. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsd1c bs=1m count=1 7. /install and use sd1 as your disk for usual installation 8. couple of enters... 9. change /mnt/etc/sysctl.conf to have 'vm.swapencrypt.enable=0' 10. reboot Of course, no warranty. jirib This is missing a very important step 11: Configure backups.
afsd?
Hi, is afsd working in 5.2? If yes, where can I read about the error arla[13196]: kern_open /dev/nnpfs0: Operation not supported by device besides in /var/log/daemon? If no, where can I read about why? Thanks! Br/Anders
Re: Issue with U of A hosting site
The issue in the datacenter was resolved around 2:00am last night. Everything should be back up now. James On 2012-11-11, at 5:38 PM, James Woodward wrote: There is an issue at the U of A hosting site. The servers hosted in that data center will unavailable. I will do my best to post again when more information is available. Thank you, James
Re: afsd?
nnpfs (ie arla) has been discontinued in openbsd. 2012/11/12 Anders Trobäck b...@troback.com: Hi, is afsd working in 5.2? If yes, where can I read about the error arla[13196]: kern_open /dev/nnpfs0: Operation not supported by device besides in /var/log/daemon? If no, where can I read about why? Thanks! Br/Anders -- To our sweethearts and wives. May they never meet. -- 19th century toast
Re: afsd?
Den Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:52:17 +0100 skrev Janne Johansson icepic...@gmail.com: nnpfs (ie arla) has been discontinued in openbsd. 2012/11/12 Anders Trobäck b...@troback.com: Hi, is afsd working in 5.2? If yes, where can I read about the error arla[13196]: kern_open /dev/nnpfs0: Operation not supported by device besides in /var/log/daemon? If no, where can I read about why? Thanks! Br/Anders So now it's just net/openafs for afs support?
Re: afsd?
nnpfs (ie arla) has been discontinued in openbsd. is afsd working in 5.2? If yes, where can I read about the error arla[13196]: kern_open /dev/nnpfs0: Operation not supported by device besides in /var/log/daemon? If no, where can I read about why? So now it's just net/openafs for afs support? Yes, for the arches where it works. There is nothing that prevents you from trying an arla compile yourself though, its just not supplied with openbsd anymore. I had some success with arla loaded as an LKM long time ago, except on macppcs. -- To our sweethearts and wives. May they never meet. -- 19th century toast
Re: Issue with U of A hosting site
James Woodward jaw2 () ualberta ! ca Thank you, James Thank you. While it's expected that universities will support the wider community it's probably entirely optional. Thank you for supporting us. In this case you happen to be supporting something very cool ...
Gdm and Gnome with OpenBSD 5.2
Dear all, I am sorry, I can't work out finding gdm or running Gnome with OpenBSD 5.2, could someone please send a link or some informations ? I used to have it working before, just now I would like xdm to launch gnome but starting gnome-session ends up with various errors and back to xdm console. Sorry again and thanks for help JF
Unified BSD?
Hi! First and foremost I'd like to present myself, I'm a young and naive junior sys admin that think people should be able to compromise and see the bigger picture and the good of the cause. Now over to the reason for my post. As all of you probably know there's a lot of buzz around Gnu/Linux these days and I'm pretty sure you couldn't care less. What I'm wondering is why the BSD community which from what I can gather isn't as big as the Linux community have decided to split their resources into several different projects/forks/distributions. To me it seems *BSD would be in a more competitive shape if all developers would get in under one roof? Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? Kind Regards, Robin Bjorklin
Re: Gdm and Gnome with OpenBSD 5.2
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Jean-François SIMON wrote: Dear all, I am sorry, I can't work out finding gdm or running Gnome with OpenBSD 5.2, could someone please send a link or some informations ? I used to have it working before, just now I would like xdm to launch gnome but starting gnome-session ends up with various errors and back to xdm console. Sorry again and thanks for help # pkg_add gnome Then read this: /usr/local/share/doc/pkg-readmes/gnome-* If it still fails, provide error messages.. -- Antoine
Possible regression on dhclient (current)
Hello all, I was surfing on a Web when suddenly all traffic stopped. Closer examination revealed Too many open files failure with the dhclient. Since there have been improvements in the dhclient lately, could this be related? Tried to do pkill -TERM dhclient sudo dhclient trunk0 but no cigar. Any hints what to try the next time if this occurs? Uptime was 3 days if it happens to matter. I'm also testing Brain Fuck Scheduler patch since it makes videos playable. Yes, I can rule it out by running GENERIC if necessary. Complete dmesg at the bottom of this message. But now, here's some information: $ dmesg |tail -100 ... arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address ... /var/log/daemon: Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPDISCOVER on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPOFFER from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPREQUEST on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPACK from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[7427]: socket open failed: Too many open files Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: bound to 192.168.50.102 -- renewal in 300 seconds. Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPDISCOVER on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPOFFER from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPREQUEST on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPACK from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[7427]: socket open failed: Too many open files Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: bound to 192.168.50.102 -- renewal in 300 seconds. /var/log/messages Nov 12 23:11:59 /bsd: arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address Nov 12 23:12:21 /bsd: arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address Nov 12 23:14:58 last message repeated 15 times Nov 12 23:22:22 last message repeated 32 times Nov 12 23:22:24 dhclient[9276]: SIOCDIFADDR failed (192.168.50.102): Can't assign requested address Nov 12 23:22:24 dhclient[9276]: SIOCDIFADDR failed (192.168.50.102): Can't assign requested address Nov 12 23:22:27 /bsd: arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address Nov 12 23:23:04 last message repeated 5 times $ ulimit -a time(cpu-seconds)unlimited file(blocks) unlimited coredump(blocks) unlimited data(kbytes) 716800 stack(kbytes)4096 lockedmem(kbytes)1298308 memory(kbytes) 3881796 nofiles(descriptors) 500 processes128 NOTICE: Closed Chromium since it had several descriptors opened. After that fstat |wc -l showed ~400. Tried to restart dhclient again but with no luck. $ route -n show # (not using inet6) Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Mtu Prio Iface default192.168.50.101 UGS4 192 - 8 trunk0 127/8 127.0.0.1 UGRS 00 33152 8 lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 2935 33152 4 lo0 192.168.50/24 link#5 UC 10 - 4 trunk0 192.168.50.101 00:30:18:a4:f8:e3 UHLc 0 55 - 4 trunk0 192.168.50.102 127.0.0.1 UG 00 3315256 lo0 224/4 127.0.0.1 URS00 33152 8 lo0 OpenBSD 5.2-current (GENERIC.MP) #0: Fri Nov 9 15:19:24 EET 2012 weezel@:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP real mem = 4121640960 (3930MB) avail mem = 3989434368 (3804MB) mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.5 @ 0xe0010 (44 entries) bios0: vendor LENOVO version 6JET93WW (1.51 ) date 03/26/2012 bios0: LENOVO 284756G acpi0 at bios0: rev 4 acpi0: sleep states S0 S3 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP HPET MCFG APIC BOOT SLIC SSDT SSDT SSDT acpi0: wakeup devices P0P2(S4) P0P1(S4) USB0(S3) USB1(S3) USB2(S3) USBR(S3) EHC1(S3) USB3(S3) USB4(S3) USB5(S3) EHC2(S3) HDEF(S4) PXSX(S4) RP01(S4) PXSX(S4) RP02(S4) PXSX(S4) RP03(S4) PXSX(S4) RP04(S4) PXSX(S4) RP05(S4) RP06(S4) BLAN(S4) LID_(S3) SLPB(S3) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-255 acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5870 @ 2.00GHz, 1995.34 MHz cpu0: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE,SSE3,DTES64,MWAIT,DS-CPL,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,NXE,LONG,LAHF cpu0: 2MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu0: apic clock running at 494MHz cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor) cpu1: Intel(R)
Best Performance Server Strategy(Probably OBSD OffTopic)
Sorry for the last message. I did not finnish and hitted send wrongly.
Re: Unified BSD?
On 12 November 2012 22:37, Robin Björklin robin.bjork...@gmail.com wrote: As all of you probably know there's a lot of buzz around Gnu/Linux these days and I'm pretty sure you couldn't care less. What I'm wondering is why the BSD community which from what I can gather isn't as big as the Linux community have decided to split their resources into several different projects/forks/distributions. To me it seems *BSD would be in a more competitive shape if all developers would get in under one roof? Different BSDs have different interests. Also, competitive shape is ambiguous (competitive in speed?, portability?, security?, market share?). Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? Doesn't that apply for Linux too?
Re: Possible regression on dhclient (current)
Am 12.11.2012 um 23:01 schrieb Ville Valkonen weezeld...@gmail.com: Hello all, I was surfing on a Web when suddenly all traffic stopped. Closer examination revealed Too many open files failure with the dhclient. Since there have been improvements in the dhclient lately, could this be related? Are you really on latest -current? There was a fix committed for a descriptor leak, which results in the problems you describe. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/dhclient/kroute.c.diff?r1=1.12;r2=1.13;f=h Tried to do pkill -TERM dhclient sudo dhclient trunk0 but no cigar. Any hints what to try the next time if this occurs? route flush Uptime was 3 days if it happens to matter. I'm also testing Brain Fuck Scheduler patch since it makes videos playable. Yes, I can rule it out by running GENERIC if necessary. Complete dmesg at the bottom of this message. But now, here's some information: $ dmesg |tail -100 ... arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address ... /var/log/daemon: Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPDISCOVER on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPOFFER from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPREQUEST on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPACK from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[7427]: socket open failed: Too many open files Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: bound to 192.168.50.102 -- renewal in 300 seconds. Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPDISCOVER on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPOFFER from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPREQUEST on trunk0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: DHCPACK from 192.168.50.101 (00:30:18:a4:f8:e3) Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[7427]: socket open failed: Too many open files Nov 12 23:08:38 dhclient[9627]: bound to 192.168.50.102 -- renewal in 300 seconds. /var/log/messages Nov 12 23:11:59 /bsd: arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address Nov 12 23:12:21 /bsd: arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address Nov 12 23:14:58 last message repeated 15 times Nov 12 23:22:22 last message repeated 32 times Nov 12 23:22:24 dhclient[9276]: SIOCDIFADDR failed (192.168.50.102): Can't assign requested address Nov 12 23:22:24 dhclient[9276]: SIOCDIFADDR failed (192.168.50.102): Can't assign requested address Nov 12 23:22:27 /bsd: arpresolve: 192.168.50.101: route without link local address Nov 12 23:23:04 last message repeated 5 times $ ulimit -a time(cpu-seconds)unlimited file(blocks) unlimited coredump(blocks) unlimited data(kbytes) 716800 stack(kbytes)4096 lockedmem(kbytes)1298308 memory(kbytes) 3881796 nofiles(descriptors) 500 processes128 NOTICE: Closed Chromium since it had several descriptors opened. After that fstat |wc -l showed ~400. Tried to restart dhclient again but with no luck. $ route -n show # (not using inet6) Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Mtu Prio Iface default192.168.50.101 UGS4 192 - 8 trunk0 127/8 127.0.0.1 UGRS 00 33152 8 lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 2935 33152 4 lo0 192.168.50/24 link#5 UC 10 - 4 trunk0 192.168.50.101 00:30:18:a4:f8:e3 UHLc 0 55 - 4 trunk0 192.168.50.102 127.0.0.1 UG 00 3315256 lo0 224/4 127.0.0.1 URS00 33152 8 lo0 OpenBSD 5.2-current (GENERIC.MP) #0: Fri Nov 9 15:19:24 EET 2012 weezel@:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP real mem = 4121640960 (3930MB) avail mem = 3989434368 (3804MB) mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.5 @ 0xe0010 (44 entries) bios0: vendor LENOVO version 6JET93WW (1.51 ) date 03/26/2012 bios0: LENOVO 284756G acpi0 at bios0: rev 4 acpi0: sleep states S0 S3 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP HPET MCFG APIC BOOT SLIC SSDT SSDT SSDT acpi0: wakeup devices P0P2(S4) P0P1(S4) USB0(S3) USB1(S3) USB2(S3) USBR(S3) EHC1(S3) USB3(S3) USB4(S3) USB5(S3) EHC2(S3) HDEF(S4) PXSX(S4) RP01(S4) PXSX(S4) RP02(S4) PXSX(S4) RP03(S4) PXSX(S4) RP04(S4) PXSX(S4) RP05(S4) RP06(S4) BLAN(S4) LID_(S3) SLPB(S3) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-255 acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0:
Internet Connection - Load Balancing and Failover
Hello guys, I have two internet connections, and I want to make load balancing and failover service, I had read about pf load balancing and multi-path route, what is the difference between them. Which is the better to use in my scenario? And for failover, the best solution is ifstated(8)? thanks in advance. Walter Neto
Re: Possible regression on dhclient (current)
On 13 November 2012 00:09, Joerg Zinke m...@umaxx.net wrote: Are you really on latest -current? There was a fix committed for a descriptor leak, which results in the problems you describe. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/dhclient/kroute.c.diff?r1=1.12;r2=1.13;f=h Noup, and thanks for the pointer. Will upgrade asap and sorry for the noise.
Re: Unified BSD?
On 11/12/12 15:37, Robin Björklin wrote: Hi! First and foremost I'd like to present myself, I'm a young and naive junior sys admin that think people should be able to compromise and see the bigger picture and the good of the cause. compromise. That is almost always an evil word. In school in the United States, they taught us the glories of the art of compromise, and told us about the wonderful compromises of our founding fathers (mothers need not apply). If you look at them, with one major exception, which I would call a nifty win-win solution rather than a compromise, most of them devalued people or kicked decisions down the road, clearly bad solutions that the wrong were glad to get and the right were willing to live with. By the logic of my teachers, if you wished to shoot me four times and I didn't wish to be shot at all, a good compromise would be to shoot me twice. How could either of us object? I have two fewer holes, you got to do some of what you wanted to do. yay. And of course, a compromised computer is a bad thing. You can accuse me of linguistic games, but I don't think the uses of compromise are as different as people like to pretend. Realistically, OpenBSD refuses to compromise on things it thinks are important. The small number of OpenBSD users like that; in fact, that's the reason we use OpenBSD. The lack of compromise results in high resistance to compromise. WE like it that way. Now over to the reason for my post. As all of you probably know there's a lot of buzz around Gnu/Linux these days and I'm pretty sure you couldn't care less. bingo. What I'm wondering is why the BSD community which from what I can gather isn't as big as the Linux community have decided to split their resources into several different projects/forks/distributions. To me it seems *BSD would be in a more competitive shape if all developers would get in under one roof? That is an opinion. It may be right. As someone who has watched the Unix world since the 1980s, I disagree. It's been diverse for decades; in fact, it's been diverse since it escaped from the first computers it was developed on. That's been both a strength and a weakness of Unix. Lots of attempts to unify it have been made in the past, all failed. All involved committees and compromise. And back to what you said earlier...yes, we couldn't care less. I suspect a number of OpenBSD developers would probably freak out if next year we were the #1 (or #3) OS in popularity...it would be a sign we are probably doing something terribly wrong. Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? I wholeheartedly support your right to give it a shot and see what happens. Maybe you can break the Winux mindset. The BSD license begs you to take your dream and run with it. I hope you succeed, but only on my terms, of course. :) Your theory has been thought of many times before: http://xkcd.com/927/ (and many people reading this list know exactly what cartoon that is BEFORE clicking on it!) And realistically, that's to be expected. Why are there solutions A and B? Because some people prefer A, some prefer B. Try to make a compromise solution C, you will have people who STILL prefer A, others that STILL prefer B, and a few that think the compromise version is good. OpenBSD's goal has never been to be The Biggest or Most Successful. Just The Best, by the definition we chose. We don't see the good of the cause to compromise being the best (by our terms) for being the biggest, or bigger. Personally, I think there are bigger issues that the computer world needs to address, very high on my list is the level of craptastic design and implementation people tolerate and even encourage in the computer world. Why are your credit cards splattered all over the 'net? Well, I can say with confidence, compromise was involved -- between good design and an arbitrary deadline, between good design and pretty pictures, between good design by a skilled (and expensive) programmer and the $5/day that a programmer in Elbonia charged. Nick.
Re: Unified BSD?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Robin Björklin robin.bjork...@gmail.com wrote: Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? you are not crazy for thinking this, and fortunately there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so (or a collective group of people, or company etc...). One thing you will see in the BSD Unix systems is there is quite a bit of cross pollination between projects. The largest example current example of this from my perspective is support for OpenBSD's pf packet filter in FreeBSD. This is a packet filter built to suit the OpenBSD developers goals, but it did not restrict FreeBSD from supporting this packet filter and hopefully both projects benefit from this collaboration (wider code exposure of the pf code, and wider choice of packet filters for FreeBSD users). My opinion is that with the current state of the BSD's this is one of its stronger suits - we have multiple projects right now building entire operating systems to suit each of the projects stated goals and developer wishes. this would be opposed to gnu/linux where you are cobbling together many disparate sources to build your distribution (some of which will have goals that may not line up with your goals). with this diversity we still cross pollinate ideas and methods, but are still allowed to spend our limited resources focusing on our projects core goals. -pete -- pete wright www.nycbug.org @nomadlogicLA
Re: Unified BSD?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Robin Björklin robin.bjork...@gmail.comwrote: Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? Ain't that what OpenBSD is though - the best from all worlds? Tony http://soundcloud.com/abletony84
Re: Unified BSD?
If there's to be any hope of a rational discussion, we need to remember to CC each list as the OP did. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012, Tony ableton...@gmail.com wrote: Ain't that what OpenBSD is though - the best from all worlds? Especially with comments like these..
Re: Best Performance Server Strategy(Probably OBSD OffTopic)
Your clear solution is Tru64. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012, at 06:04 PM, Friedrich Locke wrote: Hi folks, i am planning to write a simple web server. My initial ideia for this server is that it will only serve static content. So, i would like to have the best possible performance. I don't feel like going for multiple process since i would like to reduce context switch required by multiple process send data to clients. I would like to implement it using kqueue. On a single cpu/core machine it is fairly simple to solve, but when in SMP/multicore machines i could take two approaches (Suppose we have n cores in the system): First approach: A connection multiplexer process listens for incoming connections on port tcp/80. When i new connection arrives it (the process) accepts it (the new connection) and sends the fd from the incoming connection to one of the n http server process instances and from that point on the http server process handles it. Second approach: Starts a http server process. This process opens a socket for listening incoming connection on port tcp/80. Than, this process forks n-1 processes. These n-1 process will share the listening socket and starts listening to this socket too. When a new connection arrives, the kernel wakes up one of the n proccess and this one handles the incoming connection. While this process is serving a request, we will have n-1 process listening and if a new connection arrives the kernel wakes up one of the n-1 process and do everything again and again I am no OpenBSD kernerl expert. I would like to hear from which of the approaches would deliver better performance (this is critical for me). What you have to say. Thanks a lot for your time and cooperation. Best regards, Fried.
Re: Unified BSD?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey g...@freebsd.org wrote: - Then DragonflyBSD split from FreeBSD. Mainly personality driven AFAICT. Again, this doesn't imply any criticism of the founder of the new project. There were some very valid technical reasons at the time as well, IMHO.
Re: Unified BSD?
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Linux world is unified. It isn't. The big difference between Linux and the BSDs is that it alienates itself from the BSDs and many other projects by using a viral, business-hostile license. The BSDs can draw on one another's work because there are no licensing barriers between them. --Brett Glass
Re: Unified BSD?
On Monday, 12 November 2012 at 21:37:41 +0100, Robin Björklin wrote: First and foremost I'd like to present myself, I'm a young and naive junior sys admin that think people should be able to compromise and see the bigger picture and the good of the cause. It shows :-) As all of you probably know there's a lot of buzz around Gnu/Linux these days and I'm pretty sure you couldn't care less. What I'm wondering is why the BSD community which from what I can gather isn't as big as the Linux community have decided to split their resources into several different projects/forks/distributions. To me it seems *BSD would be in a more competitive shape if all developers would get in under one roof? There's 20 years of history to explain that. Where should I begin? Should I begin? - The initial split was between Bill Jolitz and the rest of the world. This was partially personality driven, partially goal driven. Bill soon faded out, leaving just the NetBSD project. - Next came the split between NetBSD and FreeBSD. That was mainly goal driven, but there was also a fair amount of personality involved. - Then came the Unix wars, where ATT sued BSDI (a commercial variant that no longer exists) over perceived copyright infringement. The free BSDs weren't really directly involved, but the suit would have been just as relevant, and people were worried. This was the time that Linux was in the ascendancy. Users had the choice of a free GPL system or one which might land them in trouble. Most chose the safe option. - Then OpenBSD split from NetBSD. Mainly personality driven AFAICT. This doesn't imply any criticism of the founder of the new project. Round about this time I wrote a paper on the subject, which I presented in various conferences. You can find numerous versions at http://www.lemis.com/grog/Papers/, including Why BSD is better than Linux, presented at the Linux.conf.au in Brisbane. - Then DragonflyBSD split from FreeBSD. Mainly personality driven AFAICT. Again, this doesn't imply any criticism of the founder of the new project. And that's where we are. We have 4 different BSD kernels which regularly borrow from each other. Some projects, such as PCBSD, take these kernels and package them differently. Looking across the fence, I see that there is no distribution of Linux with a completely standard kernel (I think), and lots of different distributions with significantly different interfaces. On the whole, I'd say that BSD is more uniform than Linux. Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? Maybe not, but there are many reasons it won't happen. One is the structure of the individual projects, and another is that the current system works well. If you only have one kernel, you don't have people implementing different solutions for a problem, so you don't find out which is better. Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Unified BSD?
The reason was actually intellectual property based between ATT and the proprietary BSD/386 if your talking BSD4.4. That was the core reason for why FreeBSD and NetBSD started. So really it isn't that crazy, more highly unlikely that your going to get the core developers of each project to abandon years of work to start again on a unified BSD. It is a cool thought, one i have thought about. Which is why i reckon your far more likely to get support for a new BSD system that takes the foundation of one of the existing BSD's and create a project that aims for compatibility between the major BSD players. At least then its not like restarting. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Justin Mayes jma...@careered.com wrote: Yes, your bat crap crazy :-) All of these variants inherit from the same unified BSD 4.4 base code as far as I know. So years ago there were reasons that groups wanted to spilt off and focus on specific goals. Some of these goals are mutually exclusive. These BSD variants are not really competing with each other or Linux for that matter. Justin Mayes -Original Message- From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Robin Björklin Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:38 PM To: us...@dragonflybsd.org; netbsd-us...@netbsd.org; freebsd-c...@freebsd.org; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Unified BSD? Hi! First and foremost I'd like to present myself, I'm a young and naive junior sys admin that think people should be able to compromise and see the bigger picture and the good of the cause. Now over to the reason for my post. As all of you probably know there's a lot of buzz around Gnu/Linux these days and I'm pretty sure you couldn't care less. What I'm wondering is why the BSD community which from what I can gather isn't as big as the Linux community have decided to split their resources into several different projects/forks/distributions. To me it seems *BSD would be in a more competitive shape if all developers would get in under one roof? Am I bat crap crazy for thinking it could be good to merge the four largest BSD variants out there, take the best bits and pieces out of each and create a Unified BSD? Kind Regards, Robin Bjorklin
Re: Unified BSD?
On 11/12/2012 at 5:20 PM Nick Holland wrote: |On 11/12/12 15:37, Robin Björklin wrote: | | [snip] } |compromise. That is almost always an evil word. | | [snip] | = Agreement abounds. Compromise takes two good ideas and results in a mediocre idea that is in the average of those two good ideas. Many like a compromised idea, because the idea is exactly that - compromised. If your goal is to please as many people as possible, then compromise is the way to go. If your goal is to produce outstanding software then, well, you're gonna have to piss off a few people.
Re: Internet Connection - Load Balancing and Failover
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Walter Neto wsouz...@gmail.com wrote: Hello guys, I have two internet connections, and I want to make load balancing and failover service, I had read about pf load balancing and multi-path route, what is the difference between them. Which is the better to use in my scenario? And for failover, the best solution is ifstated(8)? One of the possible approaches, but maybe easier for you will be http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=trunkapropos=0sektion=0manpath=OpenBSD+Currentarch=i386format=html thanks in advance. Walter Neto
Re: Possible regression on dhclient (current)
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Ville Valkonen weezeld...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2012 00:09, Joerg Zinke m...@umaxx.net wrote: Are you really on latest -current? There was a fix committed for a descriptor leak, which results in the problems you describe. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/dhclient/kroute.c.diff?r1=1.12;r2=1.13;f=h Noup, and thanks for the pointer. Will upgrade asap and sorry for the noise. Saw that for one day as well, but update to latest did help.
relayd and header directives
Hello,
I have the follwing setup on a single machine:
RELAYD[PUBLIC IP]:443
- WEB_SERVER[127.0.0.1]:8080
pf is disbaled for testing purposes
relayd is
configured like this (snip):
/etc/relayd.conf:
###
table webhosts { 127.0.0.1}
http protocol
www_ssl_prot {
# header append $REMOTE_ADDR to X-Forwarded-For
# header append $SERVER_ADDR:$SERVER_PORT to X-Forwarded-By
# header change Keep-Alive to $TIMEOUT
# Various TCP
performance options
tcp { nodelay, sack, socket buffer 65536, backlog
128 }
ssl { sslv3, tlsv1, ciphers HIGH }
ssl session cache
disable
}
relay www_ssl {
# Run as a SSL accelerator
listen
on $ext_addr port 443 ssl
protocol www_ssl_prot
# Forward to
hosts in the webhosts table using a src/dst hash
forward to webhosts
port 8080
}
###
The problem is that when I want
to append or modify a header, this results in the error below
relay
www_ssl, session 1 (1 active), 0, 10.10.11.66 - 127.0.0.1:8080, invalid
A
failed tcpdump session looks like this:
$ sudo tcpdump -A -i lo0 port 8080
tcpdump: listening on lo0, link-type LOOP
09:15:56.710348 localhost.24156
localhost.8080: S 2366115149:2366115149(0) win 65535 mss
33112,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,timestamp 611410478 0 (DF)
M.v.X...
$qb.
09:15:56.710356 localhost.8080
localhost.24156: S 1050504178:1050504178(0) ack 2366115150 win 16384 mss
33112,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,timestamp 184181294 611410478 (DF)
N..@Xk...
.b.$qb.
09:15:56.710362 localhost.24156
localhost.8080: . ack 1 win 8192 nop,nop,timestamp 611410478 184181294 (DF)
N.k... ^\
$qb.
.b.
tcpdump: WARNING: compensating for
unaligned libpcap packets
09:15:56.711365 localhost.24156 localhost.8080: F
1:1(0) ack 1 win 8192 nop,nop,timestamp 611410478 184181294 (DF)
N.k...
^\
$qb.
.b.
09:15:56.711373 localhost.8080 localhost.24156:
. ack 2 win 2048 nop,nop,timestamp 184181294 611410478 (DF)
O.^\.k...
.b.$qb.
09:15:56.711390 localhost.8080
localhost.24156: F 1:1(0) ack 2 win 2048 nop,nop,timestamp 184181294
611410478 (DF)
O.^\.k...
.b.$qb.
09:15:56.711398
localhost.24156 localhost.8080: . ack 2 win 8192 nop,nop,timestamp
611410478 184181294 (DF)
O.k... ^\
$qb.
.b.
It seems that
after the connection is established, the client side of the relayd instead of
Pushing data and send at least the HTTP header it sends the FIN flag and the
handshake of closing the connection with local web server begins.
If all
header directives are commented out, then everything works fine.
A successful
tcpdump session looks like this:
$ sudo tcpdump -A -i lo0 port 8080
tcpdump:
listening on lo0, link-type LOOP
09:27:05.334568 localhost.14030
localhost.8080: S 2866784757:2866784757(0) win 65535 mss
33112,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,timestamp 2152179840 0 (DF)
E..@.2@.@...6[.X...
.G..
09:27:05.334576 localhost.8080 localhost.14030: S 3002945289:3002945289(0)
ack 2866784758 win 16384 mss 33112,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale
3,nop,nop,timestamp 66939 2152179840 (DF)
E..@..@.@.{...6...O
..@.1
.X...
'.MO.G..
09:27:05.334582 localhost.14030
localhost.8080: . ack 1 win 8192 nop,nop,timestamp 2152179840 66939 (DF)
E..4.n@.@.]S6.O
}.
.G..'.MO
tcpdump: WARNING: compensating
for unaligned libpcap packets
09:27:05.335528 localhost.14030
localhost.8080: P 1:199(198) ack 1 win 8192 nop,nop,timestamp 2152179840
66939 (DF)
q]@.@...6.O
..
.G..'.MOPOST
/cereri/noi/cgi-bin/query?lang=ro HTTP/1.1
User-Agent:
09:27:05.335535
localhost.8080 localhost.14030: . ack 199 win 2023 nop,nop,timestamp
66939 2152179840 (DF)
.C@.@..~..6...O
$..
'.MO.G..POST
09:27:05.671832 localhost.8080 localhost.14030: P
1:11455(11454) ack 199 win 2048 nop,nop,timestamp 66939 2152179840 (DF)
E.,..9@.@.6...O
e.
'.MO.G..HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:27:05 GMT
Server
09:27:05.671851 localhost.14030
localhost.8080: . ack 11455 win 6760 nop,nop,timestamp 2152179840 66939
(DF)
E..4..@.@.936.{h...
.G..'.MO
09:27:05.673411
localhost.8080 localhost.14030: P 11455:11460(5) ack 199 win 2048
nop,nop,timestamp 66940 2152179840 (DF)
..@.@.6...{
'.MP.G..0
/cer
09:27:05.673418
localhost.14030 localhost.8080: . ack 11460 win 8191 nop,nop,timestamp
2152179841 66940 (DF)
E..4.K@.@.cv6.{
.G..'.MP
09:27:05.675649 localhost.14030 localhost.8080: F 199:199(0) ack
11460 win 8192 nop,nop,timestamp 2152179841 66940 (DF)
b.@.@...6.{...
.G..'.MP0
09:27:05.675658
localhost.8080 localhost.14030: . ack 200 win 2048 nop,nop,timestamp
