On 9 March 2016 at 01:39, Ed Maste wrote:
> On 8 March 2016 at 18:52, Jean-Sébastien Pédron
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I use Root on ZFS and my laptop doesn't boot with a kernel from r296548
>> and world from r296491 (so older than kernel). Ed hits a similar crash.
>>
>> Here are the dmesg and backtra
On 8 March 2016 at 18:52, Jean-Sébastien Pédron
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I use Root on ZFS and my laptop doesn't boot with a kernel from r296548
> and world from r296491 (so older than kernel). Ed hits a similar crash.
>
> Here are the dmesg and backtrace of zfs(8):
> https://gist.github.com/dumbbell/c997
Hi!
I use Root on ZFS and my laptop doesn't boot with a kernel from r296548
and world from r296491 (so older than kernel). Ed hits a similar crash.
Here are the dmesg and backtrace of zfs(8):
https://gist.github.com/dumbbell/c9978ad4ac70214f0f47
With a kernel and world from r296491, everything i
Hi, (reply is at the bottom of quoted text)
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:04:46PM +, Anthony Jenkins wrote:
set module_path /boot/kernel # ?
I don't think module_path is set to its default "/boot/kernel;/boot/modules"
when booting to loader(8) prompt...
Anthony Jenkins
_
Hello All,
The disk encryption on my NAS (RAIDZ1 + ZFS + GELI (aes-128-xts)) is
running much slower than expected (80MB/S). It seems that GELI is much
slower than openssl for aes-128-xts, the results might be similar for
other cipher, but I only verified aes-128-xts and aes-128-cbc.
My NAS is run
In FreeBSD, we *do* have a compelling case for installing a small subset of
the base system: service jails (or ?containerised applications? as the kids
are calling them). We want to be able to install, for example, owncloud and
nginx or ejabberd in a jail with only the bare minimum required for th
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:59:54PM +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If
> > anyone is interested in working on this, then the Apple implementation
> > may provide some inspiration:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/
>
On 8 Mar 2016, at 17:59, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If
>> anyone is interested in working on this, then the Apple implementation
>> may provide some inspiration:
>>
>> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/
>
> Is there any way to dow
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is
> > small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with
> > spliting Xorg to many small pac
Hi!
> Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If
> anyone is interested in working on this, then the Apple implementation
> may provide some inspiration:
>
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/
Is there any way to download this as tgz or something ?
It looks painful t
On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is
> small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with
> spliting Xorg to many small packages -- no profit of this.
The X.org case is similar, but not quite the s
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 03/06/16 15:20, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >
> >
> > El 06/03/2016 a las 15:05, Baptiste Daroussin escribió:
> >> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 10:55:27PM +0300, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> >>>Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >>>
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 07:44:34PM +0300, Rom
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs
> >> 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (fo
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:18:47PM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> >
> > > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg
> > > branch:
> > >
On 8 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>
> It would be really nice if somebody can bring better support for FreeBSD's
> SMB/CIFS mount. Maybe through FreeBSD Foundation projects.
Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If anyone is
interested in w
FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9 - Build #1119 - Still Failing:
Build information:
https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9/1119/
Full change log:
https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9/1119/changes
Full build log:
https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_
Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
[...]
Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs
30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only
don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off acca
O. Hartmann wrote on 03/08/2016 13:53:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:55:25 +0100
Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote:
Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol
introduced with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2?
No, it only supports the obsole
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg
> > branch:
> >
> > # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/release-pkg /usr/src
>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:55:25 +0100
Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
> On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol
> > introduced with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2?
>
> No, it only supports the obsolete SMB1 (aka CIFS) protocol.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote:
> To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg
> branch:
>
> # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/release-pkg /usr/src
>
> The projects/release-pkg branch is (at this time) in sync with head
> revisio
On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol
> introduced
> with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2?
No, it only supports the obsolete SMB1 (aka CIFS) protocol. Since SMB2
is a completely different protocol, supporting it properly pret
22 matches
Mail list logo